Why don’t opioids have to go through the standard process to be considered a medicine? Or do they? If so then you would think that one of the standard should probably be that the drug isn’t addictive. Probably be a good idea if the drug doesn’t kill *****oads of people too. I guess being addictive as **** and being really effective at causing the deaths of tons of people helps a drug pass the “process”. If that’s the case then marijuana has no chance. Simply not addictive or deadly enough. Darn it.
@infection what do you think about this post?
It takes ~15 years to bring a drug to market and costs about $3 billion. There are pros and cons to that regulation. That funding is provided by the drug manufacturer with the promise of being able to obtain a patent where they can recoup the costs and make a profit.
Drug companies won’t fund that process because they can’t make money on that specifically, unless they isolate some compound within marijuana with medicinal value (which has already been done). You can’t patent marijuana. Sure, they can always make money of dispensing it, but without a patent and exclusive right, you’re not making the kind of dollars they’re going after.
Lithium, for instance, was not patentable as it was “natural” (more than natural, it’s an element on the periodic table). Because of that, no big money in a patent, unless you do something stupid with it like make an extended release. And the fact that it’s natural doesn’t quite make it a good idea for everyone to take (many on it long term get significant kidney damage and a lot more will have thyroid problems). I’m not exactly making that analogy to marijuana but the idea stands. In any case, despite lack of lots of pharmaceutical reason to push that product, it remains one of the most clinically effective treatments for bipolar disorder and depression, and until the past couple decades, was a first line treatment, so “big pharma” doesn’t exactly have the all-powerful oppressive hand many believe, though they do wield a lot of
societal influence.
But yes, opioids have “been through” that process. Again, I don’t make any argument for that process as it certainly has pros and cons, but is far from flawless. But that’s the current standard. Plenty of drugs (most?) that have made it through that suck and are ineffective. Plenty are dangerous and lethal in certain circumstances. Many over the counter meds such as aspirin and Tylenol are much more dangerous than many medications that need a prescription, but they’re available by historical precedent.
Marijuana has medicinal value. But so does St. John’s Wort and Ginseng. Many trade-name medications also have medicinal value. But that doesn’t really make them useful, even in a minority of circumstances. Wesley Johnson is useful and has value. Not to us. Not to most teams. But he’s useful.
Regarding opioids, they are fantastically effective for acute pain and in emergency circumstances. They are absolutely terrible for long-term use. I don’t have numbers and I’m shooting from the hip, but I’d wager high money that >97% of all opioid prescriptions are for chronic pain. This is terrible. Treatments for chronic pain really
shouldn’t be medicinal, whether that’s opioids or NSAIDs or marijuana.
Marijuana is singled out for its medicinal benefits because everyone knows what it is. It’s like the Jimmer of the NBA. Many people can do what Jimmer does, but we aren’t familiar with them. We’re familiar with Jimmer so we assume he’s the only big shot not getting a fair shake.