Connect with us

Cannabis News

The Cannabis Substitution Effect – Why Big Pharma Isn’t Keen on Cannabis

Published

on


Don’t be fooled – Pharma isn’t very keen on cannabis

 

These days, I don’t really get into arguments when it comes to drug consumption, legalizing weed, etc. For the most part, the people I surround myself with are “drug-friendly” or “drug-tolerant” and understand that as an adult, I understand how to conduct myself under a wide range of substances.

 

In fact, apart from the occasional “buzz”, most people don’t ever get to see me “trip balls” as I have very peculiar protocols to safe and effective consumption.

 

For me, consuming LSD or Psilocybin isn’t about recreation – it’s about exploration and discovering the width and depth of my being.

 

However, “drugs” is one thing and “cannabis” is an entirely separate thing – despite it also being a “drug”.

 

The reason why cannabis is “different” is because it is relatively easy to cultivate, it isn’t “as intense” as other drugs and treats a wide range of ailments of humankind.

 

This is why Pharma has been so adamant in slowing down the legalization of cannabis. This is why “Schizophrenia studies” magically appear out of the blue with shoddy evidence and the infamous “need more research” clause to justify it’s “science”.

 

But under deeper scrutiny, you find that the results are often not replicable and the methods often “miss” many other potential triggers for psychotic episodes.

 

Now, some of you might say – “this dude is talking some conspiracy theory,” and while I do have a Phd in Conspiracies and assorted whacky shit – there is empirical evidence to show you why Pharma isn’t a fan of cannabis.

 

cannabis subsitution effect

image via Twitter

 

While the link on the image is a dead-link [I tried to track it down]. The truth is that cannabis has become a substitute for many people’s “pills”. This is hurting Pharma’s bottom line. They have had the world by the balls for decades.

 

The Controlled Substance Act of 1971, a landmark legislation in the United States, has often been associated with the pharmaceutical industry.

 

This act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon, established a framework for classifying and regulating drugs based on their potential for abuse and medical usefulness. While the act aimed to control drug abuse and protect public health, critics argue that it inadvertently created a favorable environment for Big Pharma.

 

One of the key aspects of the Controlled Substance Act was the authority it bestowed upon the pharmaceutical industry to control, manufacture, and conduct research on drugs. This power allowed pharmaceutical companies to dominate the drug market, leading to a virtual monopoly on drug research, distribution, and production. Through extensive lobbying efforts, the pharmaceutical industry played a significant role in shaping the legislation to its advantage.

 

By positioning themselves as the gatekeepers of drug development and distribution, pharmaceutical companies gained immense influence and control over the healthcare system. This influence translated into substantial profits and market dominance, as they became the primary providers of medication and treatment options.

 

Critics argue that the Controlled Substance Act effectively turned the United States government into enforcers for the pharmaceutical industry. The legislation provided a legal framework that consolidated the industry’s power and restricted competition from alternative medicines and treatments. This monopolistic control not only limited patient choices but also contributed to the rising costs of healthcare and prescription drugs.

 

While the “alleged” intention behind the Controlled Substance Act was to regulate drugs and protect public health, its implementation and subsequent influence of Big Pharma have sparked debates about the extent of corporate influence and the prioritization of profits over individual well-being.

 

It has underscored the need for a critical examination of the relationship between pharmaceutical companies, policymakers, and the healthcare system.

 

 

While the image reflects a survey, let’s assume for a moment that those numbers in the image translate to the wider marketplace. What if 76.6% of the population of the US switched to cannabis for pain management? How much money would Pharma lose if 76.6% of consumers stopped using their opioids?

 

I posed this question to Google Bard because, why not…and this is what it spewed out:

 

According to a 2019 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the total retail sales of prescription opioids in the United States was $26.8 billion. If 76.6% of consumers stopped using their opioids, the total retail sales of prescription opioids would be reduced to $6.5 billion. This would represent a loss of $20.3 billion for the pharmaceutical industry.

 

It is important to note that this is just a rough estimate, as the actual amount of money that the pharmaceutical industry would lose would depend on a number of factors, such as the specific opioids that consumers stopped using and the prices of those opioids. However, the estimate does provide a sense of the magnitude of the financial losses that the pharmaceutical industry would face if a significant number of consumers stopped using opioids.

 

It is also worth noting that the loss of revenue from opioid sales would not be the only financial impact of a decline in opioid use. The pharmaceutical industry would also face costs associated with the treatment of opioid addiction, as well as the costs of lawsuits filed by individuals who have been harmed by opioids.

 

Overall, the financial impact of a decline in opioid use would be significant for the pharmaceutical industry. The industry would lose revenue from opioid sales, and it would also face costs associated with the treatment of opioid addiction and lawsuits filed by individuals who have been harmed by opioids. – Google Bard, Artificial Intelligence

 

 

**Yes, I quoted a bot…they might remember my kind acts in the robot uprising.

 

According to Bard, “If 71% of all users of anxiety medicine stopped using it, the total retail sales of prescription anxiety medications would be reduced to $5.2 billion. This would represent a loss of $12.3 billion for the pharmaceutical industry.”

 

While this might be speculation by an advanced artificial intelligence, it does indicate the potential loss of revenue to an industry that has had the world by the balls for decades.

 

What would happen if people could simply grow their own cannabis at home to treat a myriad of diseases? Would we begin to see the decline of the pharma stronghold? Siphoning money through a rigged healthcare system – using public money to fund their parasitic practices.

 

 

 

Monopolies, by their very nature, tend to be detrimental to various aspects of society. Whether it’s the consumer, innovation, or the economy, the consequences of a monopoly can be far-reaching and negative. This holds true for the pharmaceutical industry, where the concentration of power has led to significant challenges and limitations.

 

One of the main downsides of monopolies is the negative impact on consumers. With limited competition, monopolistic companies can control prices, leading to inflated costs for essential medications. This restricts access to affordable healthcare and puts a burden on individuals and families. Moreover, monopolies often stifle innovation and discourage the development of alternative treatments or approaches. This lack of competition hinders progress, leaving consumers with limited choices and potentially inferior products.

 

In contrast, open-source projects provide a compelling example of the benefits of decentralization and collaboration. Open-source software, such as Linux and the Android operating system, has flourished due to its collaborative nature. By allowing developers around the world to contribute, share ideas, and build upon existing work, open-source projects often outperform closed projects in terms of innovation, reliability, and security. The success of these projects is rooted in the principles of open access and the free flow of information.

 

Applying this concept to the pharmaceutical industry, decentralizing drugs, and embracing open-source research could lead to a paradigm shift. By removing the current pharmaceutical monopoly and dismantling barriers to entry, a more diverse and inclusive landscape could emerge. This would foster innovation, promote competition, and ultimately benefit the consumer.

 

To decentralize drugs effectively, it would be crucial to establish new rules and regulations that prioritize patient well-being, safety, and affordability. This would require a comprehensive reevaluation of drug policies and a shift away from the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) framework. A call to nullify the CSA and adopt alternative approaches that promote decentralization and open research could be a powerful step toward transforming the pharmaceutical industry.

 

However, it’s important to recognize that such changes would require concerted efforts from policymakers, healthcare professionals, researchers, and the public. Advocacy for decentralization, open research, and dismantling monopolistic structures is essential. By actively supporting decentralized approaches, individuals can contribute to a more equitable, innovative, and accessible healthcare system.

 

I’m not naive. I understand that what I’m talking about is probably not going to happen any time soon if ever. However, my hope is to sow these ideas into the general mass consciousness. Hopefully, enough of these little seeds take root for a revolution to blossom throughout time.

 

I hope this information finds you well…keep on smoking dear friends!

 

OPIOID USE WITH LEGAL CANNABIS, READ ON…

OPIOID USERS SWITCH TO CANNABIS

80% OF OPIOID USERS STOP OR DROP LEVELS OF OPIOIDS AFTER CANNABIS!





Source link

Cannabis News

Federal Cannabis Roundup: Nixon, DEA, Tobacco-Hemp . . . and the DOOBIE Act (*sigh*)

Published

on

By


Last week, I wrote a round-up post on Oregon cannabis. This week, I thought I’d drop a line on the federal happenings. Which are quite a few.

The Nixon tapes

This was a fun piece of news, unearthed by Minnesota cannabis lobbyist Kurtis Hanna. Ernesto Londoño then broke the story on September 14th for the New York Times, which you can read here. In short, Nixon conceded that marijuana “is not particularly dangerous,” despite calling the plant “public enemy No. 1” only two years prior. And he opined that punishments ought not be so serious for possession of the plant.

I say this news is “fun” because it’s more interesting than surprising and I doubt it will have much impact. Nixon was a mean old liar, and one with an animus toward certain groups of people. I also don’t think this revelation will persuade the vocal, diminishing minority of prohibitionists to change their minds. I like it anyway, especially as cannabis history nerd. We were right!

DEA embraces two-step review for marijuana rescheduling

This one is important, in my opinion. It relates to the method of analysis DEA must undertake when determining whether a drug, including marijuana (and psilocybin, and any other verboten substance), has a “currently accepted medical use.” In April, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) put DEA in a box on this one, explaining that the old, five-part test was “impermissibly narrow.” OLC thus endorsed the two-part test. On September 17th, DEA assented to the test for Schedule I review.

The two-part test bodes well for DEA’s rulemaking, now underway, to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act. How do we know? Well, the Schedule I stans don’t like it, for starters. This is because, under two-part review, a drug can have currently accepted medical use: a) even if that drug hasn’t been approved by FDA, and b) even if the drug wouldn’t pass DEA’s scrapped five-part test. So, more runway.

DOOBIE Act on the way?

I’m embarrassed even having to type that. But yes, some Congressperson named a federal cannabis bill the “DOOBIE Act,” unfortunately. With a press release and everything.

This proposal would prohibit federal agencies from denying security clearance and employment to people simply because they have used marijuana. In my reading of the actual bill, these agencies could still ding an applicant for past marijuana use, but they couldn’t “base a suitability determination . . . solely on the past use of marijuana by the individual.” The word “solely” needs to go.

Because this bill applies only to “Executive agencies” under 5 U.S. Code § 105, it also wouldn’t have prohibited, say, Joe Biden from doing his “doobie” staffers dirty, which he definitely did.

FDA gets the nod on tobacco-hemp

I like the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and often send people thataway. On September 16th, CRS published a new report titled “Legal Effect of Marijuana Rescheduling on FDA’s Regulation of Cannabis.” Here are my extremely condensed takeaways:

  1. FDA can authorize tobacco products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids (although it hasn’t yet). This is because hemp is not a controlled substance.
  2. Marijuana, even at Schedule III, would still be banned as a tobacco additive (and probably always will be). This is because FDA would need to approve specific cannabis medicines first, and it never does that for botanical drugs.

Here we have one of those cognitively dissonant outcomes often seen with the cannabis plant. As a reading of law it makes sense, but as to policy it’s nonsense. You can thank Richard Nixon and other cannabis heels for that.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Does Hemp Have Cancer-Fighting Properties?

Published

on

By


hemp for fighting cancer

Does Hemp Have Cancer-Fighting Properties?

Hemp, Weed’s Cousin, May Have More Therapeutic Value Than We Thought

 

While both hemp and cannabis come from the same plant, they possess significant differences.

 

Hemp, in particular, has become the less popular cousin of weed because more people were interested in the psychoactive properties of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). And since hemp only contains less 0.3% or less of THC, recreational consumers weren’t keen on it.

 

Historically speaking, hemp has been famous for thousands of years across ancient civilizations around the world. It was cultivated for its reliable fibers, used in textiles, rope, clothing, and paper. Even back then, hemp’s nutritious properties were known. People ate its seeds and extracted oil, while it was used for treating many conditions in ancient China and ancient India.

 

However, hemp plants do contain a much higher amount of cannabidiol (CBD), and due to the sheer demand for CBD products lately for their medicinal benefits, hemp became better-known. Now, the global CBD market is estimated to be worth a cool US $7.71 billion, and it’s only expected to grow more. After all, the CBD in hemp has been found to be tremendously powerful especially for treating a wide range of diseases and afflictions, from anxiety to insomnia, and much more.

 

However, CBD isn’t the only therapeutic value found in hemp.

 

Can Hemp Help Fight Cancer?

A recent study by the Rowett Institute took a look into the potential value of specific fibers added to the diet of patients with prostate cancer, and its effect, if any, on tumors. The NHS Grampian Charity has invested £90,000 into this research, which has been led by Professor Anne Kiltie, who is a member of Friends of ANCHOR Clinical Chair in Oncology, at the University of Aberdeen.

The new study, which was conducted by Dr. Aliu Moomin, Dr. Sylvia Duncan, and Dr. Madi Neascu, focused on hemp fibers such as hemp hull, inulin, and pectin. They analyzed how these fibers affect gut bacteria in animal models, and its overall impact on tumor cells.

 

According to Professor Kiltie: “This funding will allow us to build on our previous work demonstrating a benefit to dietary fibre supplementation in terms of improved tumor control and protection of the bowel from radiotherapy damage, by looking at other types of fiber and how these interact with the gut microbiota,” she said. The idea is that if they notice improvements when cancer patients supplement with fiber, and it actually helps delay the progression of cancer, this would be instrumental improving patient outcomes.


We have long known that diet plays a critical role in cancer development and prevention, so it only makes sense to take advantage of the healing power of gut microbiome for cancer patients. There are several studies that show a strong link between gut microbiome and one’s cancer risk. One study in particular found that patients with melanoma, who possessed healthy gut bacteria, had much better responses to immunotherapy treatments compared to patients who had poorer gut bacteria.

 

“We hope that this work would lead to a large randomized clinical trial in the UK in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. If the fiber supplementation is found to delay progression of the disease and prevent the need for active treatments, this would significantly improve outcomes for these patients and their quality of life,” she added, shared by a release published by the University of Aberdeen.

According to Dr. Simon Dunmore, the NHS Grampian Charity research officer: “The importance of intestinal microbiome in a wide range of health areas, including the development of cancer, is becoming increasingly highlighted by numerous scientific studies,” he said. “This study will provide important evidence of the role of a beneficial gut microbiome composition in reducing the aggressiveness and development of prostate cancer and the positive effect of dietary fibre on the microbiome,” he added.

 

Studies On Hemp Oil For Cancer


There are other studies supporting the viability and potential of hemp compounds for treating cancer. In another recent study out of Shanghai in China, researchers found that hemp oil extracts which contain the terpenes humulene and caryophyllene were found to be effective in treating pain and fighting cancer.

 

For the study, Chinese researchers analyzed the tumor-fighting and painkilling properties of hemp oil on mice. They found that after administering the hemp oil extracts, it was found to significantly reduce tumor growth. “Thes results reveal that HEO [hemp essential oil] plays a role not only in tumor chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy treatment, but also in anti-tumor treatment which offers key information for new strategies in cancer treatment and provides reference for the medicinal development of hemp,” they said.


Additionally, since hemp contains abundant levels of cannabidiol (CBD), it can be used for alleviating the symptoms of cancer treatment. Studies have shown that CBD is effective for helping relieve pain, stimulate the appetite, and minimize nausea and vomiting – all of which are tremendously valuable for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. CBD can also be integrated into one’s lifestyle to reduce chronic inflammation and stress, which, when left untreated, can contribute to cancer progression.

 

Conclusion


These studies are promising: hemp is clearly not just important for its industrial benefits, but it can also help save lives. The compounds found in hemp plants may help fight and treat cancer, shrink tumors, and even enhance the effectiveness of traditional cancer therapies. If you or a loved one want to explore using hemp for wellness and cancer prevention, you may consult with healthcare professionals for tailored medical advice.

 

HEMP FOR FIGHTING CANCER, READ ON…

CBD FOR OVARIAN CANCER

CBD FROM HEMP HELPS FIGHT OVARIAN CANCER IN NEW STUDY?



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Why is Everyone But the Youth Smoking Weed?

Published

on

By


youth marijuana use drops

In recent years, the landscape of cannabis use has undergone a surprising transformation, defying long-held predictions and challenging conventional wisdom. For decades, opponents of marijuana legalization have wielded a powerful argument: legalizing cannabis would send the wrong message to youth, inevitably leading to increased consumption among teenagers and young adults. This fear has been a cornerstone of anti-legalization campaigns, painting a grim picture of a future where young minds are clouded by widespread drug use.

However, as more states and countries have embraced cannabis legalization, an unexpected trend has emerged. Contrary to dire predictions, youth cannabis use has not skyrocketed. In fact, in many places, it has remained stable or even declined. Meanwhile, it’s the older generations who are increasingly turning to cannabis, with one of the fastest-growing demographics of users being adults over 50.

This shift isn’t limited to cannabis alone. Across the board, today’s youth are showing less interest in various substances, including alcohol and tobacco. It’s a trend that has left researchers and social commentators puzzled. Are we witnessing the rise of a more health-conscious, drug-averse generation? Or, as some might cheekily suggest, are young people today simply less inclined towards experimentation and risk-taking than their predecessors?

The implications of this trend are far-reaching, challenging not only our assumptions about drug policy but also our understanding of generational behaviors and values. On one hand, we could interpret this as a positive development – a sign that education and awareness campaigns are working, producing a generation more informed about the risks of substance use. On the other hand, it raises questions about changing social dynamics and what drives young people’s choices in today’s world.

In this article, we’ll explore the factors behind this intriguing phenomenon. Why are fewer young people turning to cannabis and other substances, even as legal barriers fall? And what’s driving older adults, particularly those over 50, to embrace cannabis in growing numbers?

By examining these trends, we hope to gain insight into the complex interplay of social, legal, and cultural factors shaping attitudes towards substance use in our society.

 

As we delve into the statistics, a clear trend emerges: fewer young people are indulging in substances across the board. Whether it’s alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis, today’s youth are increasingly abstaining. This shift has left many scratching their heads, wondering what’s behind this sudden display of temperance among the younger generation.

At first glance, one might be tempted to chalk it up to the success of drug education programs. After all, today’s youth are bombarded with information about the risks and consequences of substance use from an early age. Gone are the days of simplistic “Just Say No” campaigns and exaggerated scare tactics. Modern drug education tends to be more nuanced, focusing on harm reduction and evidence-based information.

However, as someone who went through the gauntlet of ’90s drug education myself, I can attest that knowledge doesn’t always translate to abstinence. My generation was subjected to a barrage of anti-drug messaging, yet many of us still experimented with various substances in our youth. So while improved education may play a role, it’s unlikely to be the sole factor driving this trend.

Perhaps we need to look at what today’s youth are doing instead. Enter the elephant in the room: social media. In many ways, social platforms have become the drug of choice for the younger generation. The constant dopamine hits from likes, shares, and notifications create a neurological response eerily similar to that of traditional stimulants. As kids spend more time glued to their screens, they may be less inclined to seek out other forms of stimulation.

Moreover, the ubiquity of social media has changed the nature of rebellion. When I was young, smoking a joint or sneaking a beer felt like acts of defiance against adult authority. But in a world where parents and grandparents are posting selfies and sharing memes, how does one rebel? For some youth, abstaining from substances their parents use might be the ultimate act of generational differentiation.

The normalization and legalization of cannabis in many areas have also played a role. As weed becomes more mainstream and socially accepted, it loses its countercultural edge. The image of cannabis has shifted from a symbol of rebellion to something your cool aunt does to relax after work. This transformation may have inadvertently made it less appealing to youth seeking to establish their own identity.

Lastly, we can’t ignore the practical aspects. As more adults turn to legal dispensaries for their cannabis, the street market that traditionally supplied curious teens has faced stiff competition. Legal establishments with strict ID checks have made it harder for underage users to access cannabis, potentially contributing to the decline in youth use.

In essence, today’s youth aren’t necessarily more virtuous or health-conscious than previous generations. They’re simply products of their environment – an environment that offers myriad digital distractions, blurs the lines of generational rebellion, and increasingly restricts access to substances. As we continue to navigate this shifting landscape, it’s crucial to remember that while reduced substance use among youth is generally positive, it doesn’t tell the whole story of their well-being. The challenges and pressures faced by today’s young people are unique, and our understanding and support should evolve accordingly.

 

As we turn our attention to the other end of the age spectrum, an intriguing trend emerges. While youth cannabis use is on the decline, adults over 50 are blazing up in record numbers. This demographic has become one of the fastest-growing segments of cannabis consumers, leaving many to wonder: why are the “olds” suddenly embracing their inner stoner?

To understand this phenomenon, we need to dive into the fascinating world of the endocannabinoid system. This complex network of receptors in our bodies doesn’t fully mature until around age 25. As we age, our natural endocannabinoid production tends to decline, leading to what some researchers call “endocannabinoid deficiency.” This can manifest in various ways, from mood disturbances to physical discomfort.

Enter cannabis. When older adults consume marijuana, they’re essentially giving their endocannabinoid system a much-needed boost. It’s like adding oil to a squeaky machine – suddenly, things start running more smoothly. Many report improvements in sleep, mood, and general well-being. It’s not just about getting high; for many, it’s about feeling balanced and functional.

Moreover, as we age, our bodies become less resilient to the effects of alcohol. A night of heavy drinking in your 20s might result in a manageable hangover, but the same indulgence in your 50s or 60s can knock you out for days. Cannabis, on the other hand, offers a gentler experience. You can enjoy an evening toke and still be ready to face the day come morning. For many older adults juggling work, family, and other responsibilities, this is a significant advantage.

Accessibility is another crucial factor. As more states legalize cannabis, it’s becoming increasingly easy for adults to walk into a dispensary and purchase high-quality, regulated products. Gone are the days of relying on sketchy dealers or questionable sources. This ease of access, combined with the normalization of cannabis use, has made it a more appealing option for older adults who might have been hesitant in the past.

Let’s not forget the economic aspect. In many cases, cannabis can be a more cost-effective option than alcohol, especially when consumed in moderation. A single joint can provide an evening’s worth of relaxation, often at a lower cost than a night out drinking. For retirees or those on fixed incomes, this economic advantage can be particularly appealing.

The health benefits of cannabis, especially when compared to alcohol, can’t be overstated. While excessive use of any substance can be harmful, moderate cannabis consumption doesn’t carry the same risks of liver damage, addiction, or long-term health consequences associated with alcohol abuse. For older adults looking to unwind without compromising their health, cannabis presents an attractive alternative.

In essence, the rising popularity of cannabis among older adults is a perfect storm of biological, practical, and social factors. It offers a way to potentially improve health and well-being, provides a gentler recreational experience, and aligns with changing social norms. As more research emerges on the potential benefits of cannabis for age-related issues, we may see this trend continue to grow.

Of course, it’s important to note that cannabis use, like any substance, should be approached responsibly and with an understanding of potential risks and interactions with medications. But for many in the over-50 crowd, it seems that cannabis is proving to be a welcome addition to their golden years.

Who would have thought that the “reefer madness” generation would end up being the ones to fully embrace the green revolution?

 

CANNABIS USE DROPS AMONG YOUTH, READ MORE..

WHY TEEN MARIJUANA USE DROPS AFTER LEGALIZATION

WHY CANNABIS USE DROPS 9% IN TEENS AFTER LEGALIZATION!

 

 



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media