Printable View
"And I am unsure how to react at people who think that "Big pharma" is some evil entity."
I suggest that you question them.
Exactly why do they think so, and what evidence do they have to support their opinion?
Be prepared to counter with actual facts of course. :)
Aloha,
Wee 'zard
Hmmmmm, guessing you may be employed by a pharmaceutical company or possibily a lobbyist lol? Do ya understand the historical facts & NOT what has been portrayed in the movies (Reefer Madness) & media?Quote:
Originally Posted by IgotQuestions
:cool:
I will be happy to provide factual information. No, I am not in any position that is in any way related to pharmaceuticals or medical industries or affiliates.
Do you understand what goes in to getting medicine made? I mean, they are in it for the money the same as any business, but they don't make as much as you think. drug companies aren't making all that much money. The world's largest pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, has taken such a financial beating that they are forced to shut down a lot of factories and production in order to cut costs. Overall, in fact, all major and just about all in general are losing money. Simply Google "pharmaceutical downgraded" and see all the many companies that are in financial jeopardy. Take the company Hollis-Eden for example, they spent over $100 million in a medicine used to fight the effects of radiation exposure and they NEVER made a profit.
To make a new drug, it is insanely expensive. While it may be true that that $20 a pill has less than a dollars worth of chemicals and material in it, but behind those pills are millions upon millions of dollars spent on research, development, testing, and marketing, and countless other drugs that never made it that far despite the millions poured into them because they were unsafe or didn't work. Then, if they are lucky after doing all that work, it will get approved by the FDA, then they have to get doctors on-board with convincing them that they should use it. Even then, there is still the potential for major financial loss once the patents expire and people are able to make dirt cheap generics.
People seem to get upset at them because what they are doing is more crucial to our safety, and therefor, can never do it to our satisfaction. Again, look at history, economic, and financial pattern of money spent and profit earned from all those companies over long spans. Again, most of them are lucky to see profit and they cure diseases all. the. time.
Please don't get your information from movies...
That is not true, research has nothing to do with it in this case. It was about medical usefulness which is why other drugs are a lower class, because they have medical use. Though slowly, that is changing and while "weed" still isn't listed with medical usefulness, properties in the plant (that don't make you high) are starting to have value in treating a few different conditions that have only recently been found with a few patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weezard
I have to disagree;
The criteria for schedule 1 are;
- The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
Cannabis is not addictive, or harmful.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
The medical benefits of Cannabis have been known for literally, thousand of years.
It now has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States", simply because it is listed as schedule 1.
Round and round, yah?
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Absolute bullshit!
There is no possible LD 50 with Marijuana!
There have been many deaths attributable to OTC aspirin.
Not one actually attributable to cannabis!
The fact sheets on most pharmaceuticals would scare the shit out of any sane person that bothers to read them.
Fer instance; "Can't sleep through the night?
Take this! (May cause sudden death). WTF!
Alas, most of the prescribing doctors do not actually read them!
They do not have the time, and seem to get their "facts from attractive Pharma reps.
Those reps are a part of the industry's "costs".
As are lobbyists, and large political "donations.
Oh, and no forget the massive, unjustified, salaries and bonuses of their bigwigs.
And the only way to legally obtain Cannabis for research is through the very folk that placed this "roadblock".
Any study that admits to testing for positive attributes is denied.
Those looking for harmful attributes are approved.
Until they find otherwise, then, they are shut down!
Yes we have factual information to support that.
Many, many examples.
I suggest that you do a little more open-minded investigating.
Why?
Because I shared your impressions of the industry, until I actually dug into it.
And just a hint.
Crying poor, beats paying enormous taxes.
Don't believe every press release that you read.
Especially financial reports. :)
Aloha,
Weezard
I don't disagree, cannabis is neither harmful or addictive, but to be fair, while it may not have chemical addictions, it is prone to psychological addiction, similarly to alcohol being addictive but that is irrelevant.
I think you are confusing medical benefits from a solitary viewpoint rather than an overall scientific fact. Take TAC for instance, believe it or not, it has a medical property based on fact and not isolated cases of it might/might not work depending on the person. A compound called "TAC" that is commonly used to treat bad cuts on the head, face or neck of kids, and it is 11 percent (to not name it directly as per TOS) "Whitney Houston's drug of choice." It's used because it is less painful and invasive than injecting a topical anesthetic and it doesn't distort or misshape the wound, which can increase the chance of scarring. No other drug combines the properties of a vasoconstrictor and an anesthetic.
Weed does not have a medical use on its own, the various properties in the plant do, the parts that aren't THC which IS used in various treatments and medical aides. There is a difference.
Comparing weed to over the counter Asprin as a mode for deaths isn't really applicable because a vast majority of those deaths are caused by people not following directions, as do many things.
As for fact sheets, they list all and any possible symptoms for liability reasons. But one of the many requirements to get approval is that the benefits MUST outweigh the potential cons.
My opinions are based on impressions, they are based on facts of how corporations and businesses operate. It isn't about the press releases, it's about the fact that these companies come and go each year because they literally operate at a loss far more often than not across the board. It's simple business economics one can rely on for the facts.
Your name "Igotquestions" makes me question your motives for posting quaky statements on a "pro cannabis" site? We all got ?'s but mainly on how to grow, maintain physical health so on & so forth. Getting winded here but Weez did bring up a major point, when ya cry "pharma looses" it's a HUGE GIVEAWAY FOR "Tax Break"! Was in the field for many years & would hear Pharma Reps, Docs & pharmacists laughing at our system & on & on. So, either you are a young buck or a lobbyist or both? I'd say both. Follow the $$ Peace
:thumbsup:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the legalization and regulation of marijuana. I simply made a reply comment about how people have this preconcieved notion that all pharmacy companies are this evil entity set out to rule the world and I merely point out that most, if not all at many points in time, struggle to see a profit. Not to mention, they play a vital role in medicine, research, treatment, and longevity in general. The only lobbying I've ever done was at the state government level, and it was in no way related to pharmacy or businesses in general. It had to do with buried utility laws and rules for and during excavation that my state passed two years ago. So this in no way compares to what it seems like you are suggesting.
Why am I on here? Well, I came for the knowledge in the drug testing forum that have been shared with me, but I mostly hang around legal or business areas as it is my strong point and as stated in my profile, I provide general knowledge, and try from an objective stance. The companies of pharmaceuticals get no special treatment in almost every case. If they did, most of them wouldn't be rolling over and losing millions or in some cases, billions over their history.
Lots of companies come and go.Quote:
Originally Posted by IgotQuestions
There is no such thing as "simple business economics."
Too many variables, especially with risky business like pharma.
Poor business model, extreme competition, mismanagement, top-heavy pay scale, happenstance,
Bet it all on a compound that does not pan out.
Suffer manufacturing errors.
Aggressive marketing that backfires.
Kill a few hundred people and the lawsuits break them.
So, what else ya got?
Or, did I make you think deeper?
I certainly hope so.
You sound intelligent enough to be worth educating, or I would not bother.
Typing hurts my fingers.
Guess I'd better go medicate a little. :)
Aloha,
Thanks for reading.
Weeze
"Irrelevant, and untrue, there are dozens of natural anesthetics and vasoconstrictors that grow from the ground
The sap of the coca plant is a vasoconstrictor and an anesthetic.
But it can not be patented in that form.
Unfortunately, when processed into cocaine, it is extremely addictive and quite harmful.
Yet, cocaine it is not schedule 1!
Again, WTF!"
Not untrue, no other drug (legal or not) comes close to the ability TAC provides. The relevance was the notion of why cocaine is a schedule 2. I'm not making the rules here, I'm just saying that that is why it is. Besides, this process is why it is like that because you don't get addicted or die from it when (and if) it is used in this form by a doctor. They apply it to the area, it's not like the doctor is going to chuck an eight ball into a patient's face. But I know I'd rather get caught with a little weed (which in most areas, is just a simple confiscation or citation) than a little coke which is arrested and a record.
"Weed does not have a medical use on its own, the various properties in the plant do, the parts that aren't THC which IS used in various treatments and medical aides. There is a difference.
Here, you are simply incorrect or unaware.
More research is indicated.
It is the synergy and ratios of the >60 components in Cannabis that made it a true medicinal herb, for thousands of years.
And no medication is equally effective for all people.
We are chemically, different, each and every one of us, even siblings, even twins."
I worded that wrong, I meant to imply by weed, I was specifically talking about THC. THC that gets you high isn't what helps or treats anything.. if anything, it would ease a symptom of an otherwise underlying condition. But I have read about how the part that gets you high has been removed from THC and then that has had medical promises. The only one I can think of was one I read about two months or so back with a kid who has violent seizures and he gets synthetic versions of it.
"Ignore the directions on freely available meds like aspirin, and die!"
A gross over statement, really.
---
As for tobacco, I don't think that is even FDA controlled nor do I think it is used medically. I think all medical fields kind of, hate it. :)
"Lots of companies come and go.
There is no such thing as "simple business economics."
Too many variables, especially with risky business like pharma.
Poor business model, extreme competition, mismanagement, top-heavy pay scale, happenstance,
Bet it all on a compound that does not pan out.
Suffer manufacturing errors.
Aggressive marketing that backfires.
Kill a few hundred people and the lawsuits break them."
Yeah, that's one of the many things that does hurt the industry. But I was only talking about the issues long before and up to the point it is actually on the market. But it isn't about putting all your eggs in one basket, it's about the fact that more often than not, the R&D, testing, trials, submission, all of it doesn't go anywhere and millions are "wasted" on a failed drug or treatment.
My point is they aren't as evil as people perceive them to be. Sure, companies are in it for the money and they don't care about you or I no more than say Time Warner Cable, but they don't care about you any less either.
It's like I said, because they are in a position of such importance in developing measures for safety of general population, we hold them to a higher standard and they can never do enough to satisfy us. It's like that meme of the old wise Asian guy that says, "Pokemon Master? Why not Pokemon PhD?" They can, and never will do enough to satisfy people.