Why Big Pharma Hates Medical Marijuana

[Sentience]

There is too much competition. Yes, they could sell it. They might sell it in the future. For now however, they would rather have exclusive rights to the drugs they sell.

The drug companies dont make their killings on selling generic. Sometimes companies from poorer countries can turn huge profits that way, but the big bucks in big pharma comes from charging 1000X the cost of production for a drug they have exlusive rights over.

Did you know that $300 worth of prozac only costs 16 cents to produce?

 

[pf echoes]

I cant believe it was legal in my own state back then haha!

 

[panic_the_digital]

$10 worth of red rice yeast extract that used to be sold in chinese grocery stores contained as much Statin drugs as a natural by-product of the yeast as would be found in $400 worth of statin at the pharmacy. Statins are used for cholesterol. It was the exact same drug.

Today however they banned the process which produces the statin so unless its imported from China, your red rice extract no longer contains the drug that it used to. They dont like competition, even though it was a traditional medicine that had been used for thousands of years before modern science "discovered it".

I don't know about what concentration $10 would get you, but Red Rice Yeast Extract is still available at any pharmacy in the states OTC. Granted, it costs more than a script, but you don't need a doc appt to get it. All I know is that $400 worth of lovastatin would last a single person about 8 years. $400 of RRY extract might last you a year, year and a half, maybe much less depending on dose (keep in mind these are retail prices. I'm sure it is cheaper online or wholesale, but you get the point).

I guess I don't get your point.

 

[Sentience]

I don't know about what concentration $10 would get you, but Red Rice Yeast Extract is still available at any pharmacy in the states OTC. Granted, it costs more than a script, but you don't need a doc appt to get it. All I know is that $400 worth of lovastatin would last a single person about 8 years. $400 of RRY extract might last you a year, year and a half, maybe much less depending on dose (keep in mind these are retail prices. I'm sure it is cheaper online or wholesale, but you get the point).

I guess I don't get your point.

Red rice yeast extract used to contain lovastatin. It doesnt anymore do to a lawsuit.

I would pay $15 for a script, which is more than the cost of the red rice yeast extract from a wholesale supply source, like in China town.

$10 worth of red rice yeast extract would last someone with high cholesterol about 2 months. If you have insurance scripts are pretty cheap, but without insurance $400 worth of script will last you 1 month. Its the same drug. Bio-identical. The red rice yeast isnt standardized though. It definitely works.

The red rice yeast extract produced in the United States no longer contains lovastatin though. They got sued for the rights to use this thousands years old traditional remedy because the drug companies patented the chemical in isolation so they told the traditional TCM doctors that they are not allowed to use the medicines they have been using for thousands of years anymore....So you can still buy the red rice yeast extract, but they have to use a different method that does not produce the lovastatin, and its basically a waste of money now.....however, if you buy your red rice yeast extract from an asian country in bulk, it probably has the lovastatin in it, and a months supply could be even cheaper than your copayment for a script of cholesterol lowering drugs.

 

[Roger&Me]

+1

Obviously marijuana does not replace every single prescription medication, but it competes with Big Pharma enough that they want to block it along with anything natural that cannot be patented. Other countries with socialized medicine (Or free markets where people have the freedom to choose what to use for themselves) both tend to make better use of natural medicines because they are more cost effective. The drug companies in America have government granted protectionism, but at the expense of the consumer rather than for the consumers protection. Its really the worst of both worlds this abomination of a system we have created.

Another example of big pharma greed is how they release medications. There is finally an anti-depressant that was developed that doesnt totally fuck you up and has no withdrawal side effects....it works on dopamine rather than as an SSRI. Europe is getting this drug next year, but in the US its being delayed another 3 years because they want their existing patents on popular drugs to expire and the very month they go generic they will release this new drug to compete with it. This isnt done for the well being of patients, its done for the well being of their pocket book.

Some medications they produce are useful and needed, but that doesnt mean they are any less evil for how they conduct themselves. Their efforts to discredit natural medicine is a disgrace.

Man that was an awesome post. I feel the exact same way about this damn mess.

 

[toa$t]

what a joke. here, have this joint to cure your AIDS. Pot probably helps 0.000000000000001% of patients. big pharma really needs to keep the little guy down. sheesh.

 

[Sentience]

Marijuana is not a cure for AIDS. Its a treatment for some of the side effects, like difficulty keeping food down and wasting away. It helps the vast majority of AIDS patients who have wasting and poor apatite as a side effect of the disease or medication.

 

[Roger&Me]

what a joke. here, have this joint to cure your AIDS. Pot probably helps 0.000000000000001% of patients. big pharma really needs to keep the little guy down. sheesh.

Well considering the fact that cannabis is the most effective anti-emetic in existence, among other scientifically proven uses, I'm sure that they indeed do want to "keep the little guy down." Especially considering the fact that despite their enormous budgets and constant research, they are unable to produce compounds that are capable of competing with cannabis for several different uses.

 

[toa$t]

big pharma doesn't want to make you better. big pharma wants to give you drugs that work just well enough to keep you coming back for more. big pharma is a single entity that doesn't compete with other pharmaceutical companies, since big pharma is one giant money-making conspiracy. that's why big pharma want so keep pot illegal. because if pot were legal, 99.476297624% of people who report to hospitals could just be given a bag pf joints and sent on their merry way, and the big pharma wouldn't make any money.

open your eyes people! BIG PHARMA BLEW UP THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!

make me a list of conditions that pot is even POTENTIALLY beneficial for. I will make you a list of conditions on which smoking pot will have absolutely no effect that will be 100 if not 1000 times as long. Big pharma doesn't give a shit about pot.

 

[Sentience]

Thats hyperbole. Using an extreme and absurd description to parody your opponent does not make your own argument any more credible than it was before.

You are mistaken about your claim that hardly anyone is helped by marijuana. It is the most powerful anti-emetic known to man. Its still not 100% for all patients, but none of them are, and none of them have as high of a success rate as marijuana. Furthermore, it it an anti-emetic that stimulates apatite at the same time. There are no prescription drugs which even come close inc combining those two effects.....AND it improves you state of mind and helps you sleep. It really does compete with their drugs.

Animosity with herbal medicine has existed since the creation of the FDA early last century.

 

[toa$t]

ok, you want to play for real?

You are mistaken about your claim that hardly anyone is helped by marijuana.

this was not my claim. my claim was that marijuana helps a very low proportion of the total number of patients

It is the most powerful anti-emetic known to man.

I don't know what this means. I suspect it is irrelevant to the actual issue at stake.

Its still not 100% for all patients, but none of them are, and none of them have as high of a success rate as marijuana.

what is a 'success rate'? for which condition? are you a doctor? neither am I. let's not talk about 'success rates.'

Furthermore, it it an anti-emetic that stimulates apatite at the same time. There are no prescription drugs which even come close inc combining those two effects.....AND it improves you state of mind and helps you sleep.

I'm not saying it doesn't work. I am saying it only helps a very limited proportion of people who are in need of pharmaceutical treatment.

Animosity with herbal medicine has existed since the creation of the FDA early last century.

the fact that there is animosity towards herbal medicine is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Now, let's frame the issue. Here's how I see your position:

'Big Pharma' wants to keep marijuana illegal. They want to do this because marijuana is more effective for treating a very limited (in the grand scheme of things) number of conditions, for a very limited (in the grand scheme of things) number of people. They are willing to spend millions (tens? hundreds?) of dollars lobbying the government to protect their sales of drugs that treat conditions that could be treated as effectively with marijuana.

My position:

1) Big Pharma sells a ton of different drugs that treat a ton of different things. let's say even 1% of the drugs they sell could be effectively treated with marijuana (and I believe this is an EXTREMELY generous number). Does that justify their spending all that money on lobbying?

Answer: i doubt it. I don't know the numbers. neither do you.

2) I suggest that it probably doesn't. What is stopping big pharma from selling pot? nothing. sure, people can grow it at home themselves. people could probably even start making their drugs at home by themselves. but guess what. It is cheaper and easier for them to go to the pharmacy and buy their drugs from the pharmacist.

you say: oh, but pot is so much easier to grow. people would just do it in their homes.

I say: it is all a matter of scale. they wouldn't do it in their homes if they could just walk to the pharmacy and buy it. Think about it. if pot is cheap for people to produce at home, it would be even cheaper for big pharma to produce it on a massive scale. they still get to make their money. whether it is as much is up for debate. which leads to point 3.

3) Competition. Big pharma is not one company. Contrary to what they tell you at your local drum circle, pharmaceutical companies compete with each other. if one of them suddenly realized that pot could cure all these problems that people have, and do it way cheaper than the current treatments, guess what! they would be LINING UP TO HAVE IT LEGALIZED SO THAT THEY COULD SELL IT. WHOA!

 

[Sentience]

I think you are a troll and I am not going to continue this conversation with you. I will just point out that your claims are false and you demonstrate a poor understanding of the issue at hand and leave it at that.

 

[toa$t]

a troll? moi? ordinarily, I would agree with you. however, in this case, I think my post looks more like a well-reasoned response to a rather one-sided and dogmatic circle jerk. if that's your definition of trolling, so be it. I bet they called jesus a troll too.

 

[dieselbaby]

a troll? moi? ordinarily, I would agree with you. however, in this case, I think my post looks more like a well-reasoned response to a rather one-sided and dogmatic circle jerk. if that's your definition of trolling, so be it. I bet they called jesus a troll too.

While you certainly make a lot of valid points, you come across as an arrogant prick. It's not really helping your argument.

 

[Sentience]

There only jerk around here is you. You dont know what you are talking about.

The FDA along with whatever companies stand to lose money to the herbal supplement market have a long standing animosity with herbal supplements. This debate has been going on since 1908. The FDA wants to be in charge of herbal supplements, but the government and people decided that would create an economic burden that could not be met for plants who nobody can own the patent on. Even when there is medical evidence to support use of a plant, it will never get approved by the FDA because the entire process of of 3 stage trials costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and it just isnt worth it unless you can own the exclusive rights. The FDA basically wants to squash all use of herbal medicines and the drug companies dont mind because they compete with each other. Why buy sleeping pills if melatonin or herbal sleep aids work almost as well with fewer side effects?

Marijuana is not intended to replace every single drug on the market, but is useful as an anti-emetic, apatite stimulant, pain reducer (for certain kinds of pain like stomach cramps), sleep aid (for some people), mood elevator, and immune suppressant anti-inflammatory. It competes primarily with drugs in those classes, or can be used in combination with them.

The numbers you are using were pulled out of your ass and have no basis in reality. I dare you to back up those numbers with science or any evidence based source of any kind.

 

[toa$t]

While you certainly make a lot of valid points, you come across as an arrogant prick. It's not really helping your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Sentience]

Less than 0.00000001% of the claims you are making are backed by evidence or science.

It doesnt matter if marijuana competes with 1 medication or 800. Why do you think that is a relevant point for this argument?

 

[toa$t]

There only jerk around here is you. You dont know what you are talking about.

The FDA along with whatever companies stand to lose money to the herbal supplement market have a long standing animosity with herbal supplements. This debate has been going on since 1908. The FDA wants to be in charge of herbal supplements, but the government and people decided that would create an economic burden that could not be met for plants who nobody can own the patent on. Even when there is medical evidence to support use of a plant, it will never get approved by the FDA because the entire process of of 3 stage trials costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and it just isnt worth it unless you can own the exclusive rights. The FDA basically wants to squash all use of herbal medicines and the drug companies dont mind because they compete with each other. Why buy sleeping pills if melatonin or herbal sleep aids work almost as well with fewer side effects?

Marijuana is not intended to replace every single drug on the market, but is useful as an anti-emetic, apatite stimulant, pain reducer (for certain kinds of pain like stomach cramps), sleep aid (for some people), mood elevator, and immune suppressant anti-inflammatory. It competes primarily with drugs in those classes, or can be used in combination with them.

I don't disagree with any of this, except for the part where you say I don't know what I am talking about. The FDA is an entirely useless and totally ineffective organization that has had its head up its own ass for years.

note, however, that this issue has nothing to do with the FDA. it is about big pharma. let's try to stay on point. seems like I'm not the one who doesn't know what he's talking about...

The numbers you are using were pulled out of your ass and have no basis in reality. I dare you to back up those numbers with science or any evidence based source of any kind.

you're right, I did pull the numbers out of my ass. if you reread my post, you might realize that I conceded exactly that point. however, out of all the patients in the world with all their different conditions, do you really think that pot would actually help more than 1% of them? I'm afraid I have other things to do than research this point. you could start here though. either way, my point doesn't depend on that particular number.

 

[toa$t]

Less than 0.00000001% of the claims you are making are backed by evidence or science.

It doesnt matter if marijuana competes with 1 medication or 800. Why do you think that is a relevant point for this argument?

One of us thinks big pharma is trying to prevent the legalization of marijuana. one of us doesn't. the point of this argument is to figure out who is right.

 

[Sentience]

Alright. Maybe I misunderstood you a bit. Ill give you another chance I guess.

Its been a while but I seem to remember reading about the campaign to make marijuana illegal, and while the major advocates for the bill were mostly uptight social conservatives (not necessarily fiscal conservatives but big government and puritan types), but the major funders and contributors of the bill were large corporate sectors including Dupont that didnt want help oil to compete with plastic, textile and cotton industries that didnt want hemp fiber competing with their materials for clothing, and some of the big pharma corporations. Its a shame that corporations can use the government to impede the free market. Apparantly siding with big business is not always synonymous with supporting the free market.

Anyway, while that doesnt prove that Big Pharma is preventing the legalization of marijuana today as a priority, it does show historical context for big pharma opposing marijuana....and I cant find the source that first informed me about this today, but with some digging I might be able to find something. I know that Dupont and Rockerfeller were behind it and I am almost certain that they listed some of the major pharmaceutical companies some of the major doners were associated with.

I think big pharma is split on their position regarding marijuana. If they can creat a formulation of marijuana that can be patented, I think they would be all for it....Its the use of the herb in its crude form which cannot be standardized or patented which they are against, because they cant profit from it and it competes with their own inferior products (in the case of anti-emetic drugs, as there is nothing as effective on the market yet).