Slashdot Mirror
New Study Shows Why Big Pharma Hates Medical Marijuana (washingtonpost.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Christopher Ingraham writes in the Washington Post that a new study shows that painkiller abuse and overdose are significantly lower in states with medical marijuana laws and that when medical marijuana is available, pain patients are increasingly choosing pot over powerful and deadly prescription narcotics. The researchers "found that, in the 17 states with a medical-marijuana law in place by 2013, prescriptions for painkillers and other classes of drugs fell sharply compared with states that did not have a medical-marijuana law... In medical-marijuana states, the average doctor prescribed 265 fewer doses of antidepressants each year, 486 fewer doses of seizure medication, 541 fewer anti-nausea doses and 562 fewer doses of anti-anxiety medication. But most strikingly, the typical physician in a medical-marijuana state prescribed 1,826 fewer doses of painkillers in a given year."
[P]ainkiller drug companies "have long been at the forefront of opposition to marijuana reform, funding research by anti-pot academics and funneling dollars to groups, such as the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, that oppose marijuana legalization..."
[P]ainkiller drug companies "have long been at the forefront of opposition to marijuana reform, funding research by anti-pot academics and funneling dollars to groups, such as the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, that oppose marijuana legalization..."
The single reason not voting for Bernie is stupid, from either side of politics
Companies don't have "political power"; they can't vote, they can't serve in Congress. Companies simply inherit the right to free speech from their owners; that is, I can either speak for myself, or I can get together with a couple of other people--or a million other people--to pool money and exercise my free speech rights. If you attack that right of "companies", you're attacking my right to free speech. Furthermore, any even remotely plausible restrictions on free speech exercised through companies needs to make exceptions for media anyway, or are you going to abolish some of the biggest companies, namely media and TV companies? So you end up with government-licensed media.
You're also fundamentally wrong if you think that attacking free speech in such a way is going to reduce political corruption or rent seeking. If people can't use regular companies to exercise their right to free speech, the consequence will simply be that media companies with a license to speak freely will be snapped up by other companies and be used to spread their message. The net effect is simply to give the biggest companies even more power than they already have. Other groups that win are incumbent politicians and organizations with an already too cozy relationship with politicians.