Prescription painkiller deaths fall in medical marijuana states(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Prescription painkiller deaths fall in medical marijuana states
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/25/us-medical-marijuana-deaths-idUSKBN0GP1UJ20140825
4 comments
I agree for this particular scenario but saying you'd rather use a plant than an opioid when some plants (like opium!) produce the same effects is disingenuous.
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.
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.
I think you're reading into it a little too deeply. The point isn't to chew on a random leaf or avoid medicine.
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.
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.
"Marginally effective"? How is e.g. oxymorphone or fentanyl only marginally effective? Excruciating pain and you were using ibuprofen? Why not even hydrocodone? Or if you wanted to grow it, grow poppies and extract the opium? Only difference is that weed grows a bit easier and requires a bit less harvesting work.
(Not to mention pot seems to dull intelligence; opiates do not.)
(Not to mention pot seems to dull intelligence; opiates do not.)
I up-voted you because it's a fair question, but the grand-parent is absolutely right: there are plenty of cases where opioids are marginally effective. The management of chronic pain in particular is problematic because opioid tolerance can develop in as little as two weeks. In addition, some people have paradoxical reactions to opioids, i.e. increased pain (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21412369). Finally, the side effects of high-dose opioids are no joke.
Marginally effective because it creates a dependence that ceases to become as effective as the onset and you merely end up with an addiction.
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...
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...
Opiates get misused for a lot of pain when they're not really suitable for that particular type of pain.
For many people opiates are marginally effective because they were misprescribed.
For many people opiates are marginally effective because they were misprescribed.
I was in PT for 2 years. I had to function during that period.
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.
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.
I'm sorry you had that reaction. It really must suck to be one of those that can't handle opiates (sincerely; my mom can't either).
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.
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.
"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, thes no rush. It's only the legal and financial aspects that make it problematic. "
Seriously? Im sorry but have you ever actualy met someone who developed an addiction to their pain meds!?
Seriously? Im sorry but have you ever actualy met someone who developed an addiction to their pain meds!?
Yes I know many people. I also know some that OD'd off of crap "heroin". I know users that got promotions and high personal praise after switching to full-time OxyContin use.
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.
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.
This view is just absurd. Beyond comprehension.
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.
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.
The majority of people I know that use, and the ones I meet online seem content to be addicted. Outside of funding issues and the occasional "what's sex drive again?" they seem to love it (on apart from when they must make a BM). It enables them to handle things they otherwise couldn't. I've met young kids with bone diseases leaving them vulnerable to repeated bone breakage. A fent lollypop later and they're beyond happy, and also have left pain behind.
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
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
Opioids are said to work poorly on nerve pain.
Would love to learn more about how pot "seems to dull intelligence", do you have any sources?
Personal usage a long time ago, and firsthand experience. I don't mean long-term (maybe, maybe not; irrelevant). I mean at high enough doses to get high or seek pain relief, pot doesn't seem to leave the user with their full intelligence.
sigh, I knew someone would nitpick :)
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.
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.
As time goes on though, as we can already see, specific components that make up the plant will be taken out and used on their own. This is already happening with THC and CBD with the plant being made into oils and concentrates. If cannabis becomes legal, I'm sure pharmaceutical companies will continue this trend in an aim to find the purest and most effective way to administer the drug, just like opioids today.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I've read time and time again the argument (from medicinal users) that pure THC in pill form doesn't really replicate the effects of using actual cannabis that well.
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.
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.
Yes, it's probably inevitable.
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.
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.
I'd still rather take an aspirin than eat willow bark though. Acetylsalicylic acid has less side effects than salicylic acid and made it safer!
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.
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 usage of "heavy refinement, solvents, and chemical processes" wasn't meant to scare, it was meant to inform -- those have costs associated to them, high costs.
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.
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.
> The process of taking willow bark and turning it into a consumable product is not minimal
How did you get this idea? Scrape some bark off a tree and steep it in hot water. You now have a consumable product.
How did you get this idea? Scrape some bark off a tree and steep it in hot water. You now have a consumable product.
Sure, but that doesn't prevent the basic plant from being distributed and consumed in the way it has for centuries.
Just say "less addictive and with fewer side-effects". No need to have us go through all the levels of indirection, i.e. implications one must think of when you say "plant".
Same could be said for opium.
"when some plants (like opium!) produce the same effects is disingenuous."
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.
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.
Wut.
Many drugs containing opiates are mixed with acetaminophen[1] by drug companies to reduce their abuse potential as acetaminophen is very toxic. The thought is that people that would abuse these medicines would think twice. All it really does is kill people[2] to the point where the government puts out information on how to spot someone going through such a poisoning.
[1] https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-some-opiates-mixed... [2] https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002670.htm
[1] https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-some-opiates-mixed... [2] https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002670.htm
Even worse, acetaminophen has some serious difficulty with water solubility, so the people who really want the APAP out can get it done with no special equipment whatsoever. I wish combination drugs would just go away across the board, in all honesty.
Many common opioid formulations contain acetaminophen (paracetamol) in large amounts. If addiction develops, the acetaminophen will be the thing that kills you, via fulminant hepatic failure.
But removing the need for big pharmacological laboratories definitely makes it better. No more ridiculous prices, no more hidden corporate interests, etc. Just you and your plant, like nature "wanted" it to be.
you and your plant, like nature "wanted" it to be
Most plants would prefer to kill us rather than get us high.
Most plants would prefer to kill us rather than get us high.
Plants that help humans are propagated by them.
A nice bit on that: http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/
Uh, although Aspirin is derived from salicylic acid, from the bark of willow trees, so...
>And then addiction and physical dependence become an issue.
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.
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.
I have migraines now and again where codeine is the only over the counter painkiller with much effect, but even at the small doses that are available, the after-effects are so awful to me that I hate taking it even without any actual tolerance problems. Codeine is a nasty drug.
It's unconscionable that a doctor wouldn't prescribe you more powerful painkillers or a strong sleep-inducing medication to deal with migraines. The thought that we have easily available medicine yet it's being intentionally withheld and causing suffering is disgusting.
I also suffer from occasional migraines, and neither NSAIDs or codeine do anything for them. If you can, try something more specifically for migraines, such as sumatriptan (I get it on prescription) - it works for me every time.
>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.
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!
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!
Opium is derived from a plant, but most opiods (particularly those prescribed as medicine) are not, in any way, still plants. Agreed that the idea that just because something is a plant doesn't make it inherently better than a pharmaceutical though.
Morphine, from which heroin is derived, codeine and thebaine come directly from a plant. Many prescription pain killers like hydrocodone are derivatives of the latter compound.
But it's not the same thing. Like cocaine compared to coca leaves, the effect and chemical structure is completely different (haven't tried cocaine though, but chewed the leafs, very nice and calm effect, compared to maybe coffee/green tea with some added feeling of refreshment and oxygen in the blood, but without the overdrive factor).
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.
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.
>I heard rumors that in russian prisons people make this condensed coffee drink that acts as a sort of meta-amphetamine replacement.
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).
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).
>Same thing with natural plant vs chemical extracts. Much easier to overdose and get lethal dosage.
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.
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.
Not sure about the coffee in those prisons, but for tee there is Chifir'[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chifir'
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chifir'
> 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.
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.
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.
Much of the cannabis available today has very high THC and low CBD concentrations - arguably, at least partly, as a result of prohibition.
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'.
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'.
I would recommend trying a different strain and/or different dosage. I do work while on MJ totally fine, and in fact, I notice some more abstract programming I think about differently (only word I could think of that didn't have a positive/negative bias). Edibles could also provide another type of feeling for you, but again, I would start with a smaller dose than recommended by most. Obviously this is all anecdotal. Best of luck if you try it again!
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.
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.
"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."
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..."
:)
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..."
:)
What are the long term effects of opiods, apart from constipation? A potential dip in sex drive? What's the part that's not safe? Other than respiratory depression which is fairly easily avoided with properly labelled medicine.
That was the main point yes, but there is also the 'grow your own' benefit, so you know exactly what you are putting in your body and how it was produced.
I'd politely disagree, unless you're a PhD in chemistry and botanics, you probably have no idea what you're putting in your body :)
One does not need a PhD in chemistry or botanics or horticulture, or genetics or anything else to know, for example:
* 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.
* 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.
The way we know the harm a material (plant byproduct, animal byproduct or synthetic compound) will do to a human body is by its history of ingestion by humans. Yes, we may have a longer informal history of ingestion of cannabis.
>Yes, we may have a longer informal history of ingestion of cannabis.
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.
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.
Sure you do. You're putting heated Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica in your body, containing cannabinoids that react with receptors in your nervous system. Despite the prohibitions, you probably have ample anecdotes that the side effects are generally increased appetite, decreased motivation, possible paranoia, and conversations that are pointless to anyone that is not high.
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.
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.
Technically, yes, of course that is correct.
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.
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.
"heavily refined products that have gone through chemical processes"
You mean Vodka? :)
You mean Vodka? :)
So I assume you eat only raw plants you grew yourself and raw meat from animals you raised and killed yourself then?
Now you're just being silly.
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.
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.
I'm calling you out for your ridiculous rhetoric, indirection, and appeal to nature fallacy.
"heavily refined," "chemical processes," (oh no! Not the maillard reaction!!!!), "a plant," "solvents."
"heavily refined," "chemical processes," (oh no! Not the maillard reaction!!!!), "a plant," "solvents."
Opium poppies are very very easy to grow.
Drinking opium tea for pain relief is probably a bad idea.
Drinking opium tea for pain relief is probably a bad idea.
True, and opium is much less addictive than refined products such as morphine, heroine, oxycodone and other potent opioids.
I'd also hazard an (uneducated) guess that the number of seeds (and hence land area) required would render this unpractical for most people?
I'd also hazard an (uneducated) guess that the number of seeds (and hence land area) required would render this unpractical for most people?
> opium is much less addictive
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).
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).
Having had surgery, and been prescribed mild opiates to deal with the pain, and being on them for a short enough time that I didn't get addicted, if I lived in a free country I would prefer to have a garden with some poppies and some marijuana (as well as hops and barley and grapes and apples…) and make my own medicine, but I'm a crazy DIY-type:-)
But I don't live in a free country, so I mayn't do that.
But I don't live in a free country, so I mayn't do that.
I knew a guy that grew his own opium to manage his pain. He went to work every day, was never late, did his job, was good to his family. He managed his doses well. Was he addicted?
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.
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.
[deleted]
> No, opium is highly addictive
As you doubtless know, I didn't say it wasn't - I said it was less addictive that 'pharmaceutical grade' opioids.
As you doubtless know, I didn't say it wasn't - I said it was less addictive that 'pharmaceutical grade' opioids.
I don't think there is any evidence for that. Dried opium is 10% morphine. If you take 10 mg of morphine or 100 mg of opium, it makes no difference, you're still getting the same amount of an addictive drug.
It does make a difference - opium is comprised of many alkaloids, in a similar way to how cannabis is made up of many cannabinoids. These alkaloids increase or decrease the effects of each other, as well as exerting their own influence.
Yes, but you're still getting 10 mg of morphine. Other alkaloids aren't going to change how addictive 10 mg of morphine is.
In fact, pure morphine has fewer side effects than opium. Opium has alkaloids that can cause severe nausea, etc.
In fact, pure morphine has fewer side effects than opium. Opium has alkaloids that can cause severe nausea, etc.
> 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!
http://www.amepc.org/apm/article/view/1038/1264
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!
http://www.amepc.org/apm/article/view/1038/1264
It's not, though. At all. It literally contains morphine. It's harder to judge the dose. You will develop dependence every bit as quickly, and you can die from respiratory depression if the dose is too high.
Unlike purified morphine, raw opium can be selectively bred--or engineered--for qualities desired by humans. One such quality might be lower incidence of accidental overdose.
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.
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 would create that aversion effect? Thebaine? Anything's possible, I guess – but I haven't seen much evidence that there's any component of raw opium that can substantially slow or stop the respiratory depression and/or reinforcing effects.
I'm not saying it's not addictive, or that it's not dangerous - it is.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine
You said "much less addictive". People are responding to the words you write.
A bunch of years back, there was a minor internet epidemic of people ordering poppy pod arrangements off of eBay and brewing them in to tea. It proved every bit as addictive as abusing morphine. There are a lot of plants out there that have a safety-favourable agonist/antagonist mix, but I'm not sure opium is one of them.
Marijuana is great, I'm a fan for both recreation and medicinal. However, it is certainly addictive and If used regularly, you will become dependent on it. Depending on how much you need for pain relief, withdrawal can suck pretty bad. I prefer it to opiates because i can control it better, and it doesn't affect my ability to program nearly as much. Especially since I can stop using marijuana to get through a hard problem, where opiate pain management plans require a constant level. Dropping below that level requires more breakthroughs to get above the pain. This increases your tolerance, and if you do it enough, you end up having to have surgery without any pain management because your at the top level of prescribeable opiates for your baseline, and would require ICU care for fear of your respiratory system shutdown. Marijuana has no such issues, but it still isn't magic.
I have used marijuana for most of my life and I've stopped for periods of time, sometimes up to a year of no use, and I can vouch for the effects of addiction. For me the cold is colder, I sweat more (especially when I sleep) and I tend to be more grouchy. All of this for at least 2 weeks before everything is "normal" again. Even with these withdrawal symptoms I would still prefer marijuana to any opiates.
Prescription painkillers like oxycodone are large recruitment paths to heroin as well as a cheaper alternative once people get addicted and cut off and forced to deal with drug dealers.
So people who are concerned about heroin abuse, should really want to find alternatives to handing out prescription opioids unnecessarily.
So people who are concerned about heroin abuse, should really want to find alternatives to handing out prescription opioids unnecessarily.
Opiates are currently the most commonly used medication in death by suicide in the UK. (Followed by tri-cyclin antidepressants, anti psychotics, combination opiates plus paracetamol, and then paracetamol alone).
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.
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.
... That's so backwards. How about we should find ways to make proper opiates easily accessible, so patients don't need to buy crap "heroin" off the street?
Opiates are the wrong choice for most pain. Opiates are only useful for a narrow range of pain. People think opiates are some kind of magic pain removal med, but for many types of pain opiates are not as effective as eg paracetamol.
When a doctor prescribes opiates for pain they often cause an addiction, whilst not fixing the pain.
When a doctor prescribes opiates for pain they often cause an addiction, whilst not fixing the pain.
Opium comes from plants. Marijuana often has physical withdrawal symptoms for chronic users. I'm sure there are many people whose lives/potentials are limited by marijuana abuse.
Legalization/regulation is a good step, but let's not kid ourselves.
Legalization/regulation is a good step, but let's not kid ourselves.
You need to provide references for the "Marijuana often has physical withdrawal symptoms for chronic users" statement, because I pay attention to this type of stuff and I've never heard or or run across it in real life. Of course, opium addiction and withdrawal are well documented.
I'm not the same poster as above but a bit of Googling turned up several sources that appear reputable though I didn't dig real deep. I have no dog in this fight whatsoever but here's a link to one that I found interesting & that seems to have been well-conducted at first glance:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
That study selected subjects who had already experienced withdrawal from cannabis. Not sure how universal its conclusions are going to be.
[0] Lived experience
[1] Gorelick DA, Levin KH, Copersino ML, Heishman SJ, Liu F, Boggs DL, & Kelly DL (2012). Diagnostic criteria for cannabis withdrawal syndrome. Drug and alcohol dependence, 123 (1-3), 141-7 PMID: 22153944
I'm sure you can search around and find a lot more, there is a growing understanding/acceptance that it exists.
I'm sure you can search around and find a lot more, there is a growing understanding/acceptance that it exists.
Cannabis does not have medically significant withdrawal symptoms. Some people get headaches (similar to caffeine). Remember, alcohol withdrawal is life-threatening.
Do you have any references about physical withdrawal from cannabis? (serious question, I've never come across any formal evidence of this)
Not gonna link because I'm at work but check WebMD.
Your surety of social phenomena absent any presentation of evidence demonstrates only that you give credence to your biases.
I completely agree, but framing it as a plant vs some terrible terrible thing is a bit of a falacy.
After all nightshade and tobacco are both just plants, but are really pretty awful for you.
After all nightshade and tobacco are both just plants, but are really pretty awful for you.
[deleted]
This bizarre argument always seems to turn up: "There may be a risk that legal medical marijuana will make the drug more accessible for kids and smoking may impair driving or carry other risks, she said."
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.
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.
I don't see what is bizarre about the argument at all. It doesn't discount that it's illegal and wrong now, it only speculates that the increase in availability will increase the incidence of these actions. Could you expand on how this is not so?
Legalization with regulation tends to make it harder to obtain the product illegally. It's easier for kids in most of the US to get cannabis than it is for them to get alcohol, for example, because the legal, regulated market for alcohol makes selling it illegally largely unprofitable and therefore a much less attractive practice to engage in. This despite the far greater general availability of alcohol.
Do you have any citations for this? My personal experience was totally the opposite. I could always get an over 21 friend to run to the liquor store and get me whatever I wanted. Scoring weed was texting a friend of a friend and hoping for the best.
I would argue it's better if children had more access—under the condition they're using it as a substitute for alcohol.
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.
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.
The difference is that dealers are your own age, and could be found as early as 7th grade. Having a "friend" that's over 21 that is willing to take time to buy alcohol illegally for you?
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).
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).
> it only speculates that the increase in availability will increase the incidence of these actions.
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.
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.
>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!
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).
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).
And people are driving on opiods too, which may be worse. They were dying from them too! But always have to remember to demonize the drug, in line with official doctrine.
At one point, I required an obscene amount of opiates to function. If the pain was too steep, you would pop a breakthrough right away. The number of times I found myself sitting at my desk and wondering how I got there were too high.
It's stupid conservative thinking rather than rational scientific thinking. How this sort of thinking still exists is over my head.
Yup. There's even a link in the article to another article mentioning how those states have seen little to no increase of use amongst teens.
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.
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.
And there is no movement to make alcohol illegal due to the same argument. It's just nuts.
[deleted]
[deleted]
One point that hasn't been addressed so far is how misleading this study is. It's looking at death rates related to prescription painkiller deaths doing a time-series analysis 1999-2010 and then correlating results to states that made medical marijuana legal over that time period. It doesn't say how they eliminated any other number of causes during that period. This is merely showing correlation not causation.
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"
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"
No one implied causation. The study found that states who legalized medical marijuana found a decrease in opium mortality but roughly 20% after 2 years. Around the country, opium mortality rates are increasing. Thus it is quite reasonable to say 'the opium mortality rate is statistically significantly less in medical marijuana states than in others.' No one has claimed anything more than that, and it is in fact science.
This was the site I was actually looking for as great examples of correlation http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
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.