Thursday, August 14, 2008

Skepticism About Claim of Big Pharm Innocence

Quite recently, both NORML's Paul Armentano, and DRCNet's Scott Morgan have published articles attempting to debunk the idea of Big Pharm supporting Marijuana Prohibition.

People are skeptical about these attempts at dissuasion, beyond myself, as I found upon a NORML BB from New Zealand:

Chronic Pothead
Chronic Pothead

Joined: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 3153
Location: NZ

nightshade wrote:

tony, hopefully you're friends are mistaken. just for discussion here's another piece i found online. i'm pathologically optimistic icon_smile.gif
- - - - - - - -
1. Pharmaceutical companies are vigorously pursuing patents on various marijuana components and derivatives for a great variety of potential medical applications. Given the rigorous and heavily politicized FDA approval process they'll ultimately need to pass, there's no sense in indulging anti-marijuana hysteria within the government bureaucracy.

I sway between optimism and pessimism.

I read that piece and felt he had got it wrong.. His very first point (1.) to me explains why.

The drug companies have known for over 50 yrs ( maybe hundreds) and even so more of late cannabis has considerable medical attributes . Up until recently and in part thanks to GW 's they have begun a race to develop an alternative to natural product , one they can secure commercial interest and clip the ticket on..

Its still in their best interest to ensure natural product is excluded as competition , they will be able to oversell the objections as to the negative propaganda they create on cannabis by using the same arguments they used when they convinced our own MOH and Ministers Of Health to drop natural product and replaced it with sativex on any applications for approval.

They will ensure the staus of cannabis remains as it is , just as morphine is approved but opium is not, one of the ploys we will see soon..
I am optimistic we will overcome , but only if we know just what we are up against..
Know thy enemy .


Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

Joined: Dec 01, 2003
Posts: 2340
Location: Christchurch, NZ

Post Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:45 pm

Thats an interesting article nightshade. I don't think I am about to swallow it hook, line & sinker right at the moment. But thats just me icon_lol.gif
Money, influence, power and control, of course the police and others have a hand out for their pound of flesh or, more politely, their piece of the prohibition pie. Yum yum. ...........

[<<] [>>]
Domain Name ? (Network)
IP Address ? (TelstraClear Christchurch DSL Customers)
TelstraClear Ltd
Continent : Oceania/Australasia
Country : New Zealand (Facts)
City : Christchurch
Lat/Long : -43.5333, 172.6333 (Map)
English (U.S.)
Operating System
Microsoft Windows Server 2003
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv: Gecko/20080702 Firefox/
version 1.5
Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit
Aug 13 2008 4:35:01 am
Last Page View
Aug 13 2008 4:35:32 am
Visit Length
31 seconds
Page Views
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page
Visit Exit Page
Out Click

Time Zone
Visitor's Time
Aug 13 2008 8:35:01 pm
Visit Number

[<<] [>>]

Visitor PathDuration (s)

Plausibility of Big Pharm Thwarting/Slowing Drug Policy Reform

5 comments:, CHCH 2007 said...

The medicalisation of cannabis is more likely to be a political construct than anything egregious by big pharma - that is not to say big pharma doesnt benefit from the outcome. The problem I have with medpot's social justice is that it fails to do justice to the wider social justice issue and adds layers of compliance complexity where there should be none. It thus a step backwards. Access constrait to Medpot should only be viewed as 'another unintended consequence' of prohibition.

Douglas A. Willinger said...

Please define "social justice"?, CHCH 2007 said...

This is the usual retort, and being familair with the territory, I will only say... read the posting holistically, the meaning is clear.

If one wants to obsfucate what is clearly intended one might begin by asking define 'political construct' or 'compliance complexity' or 'unintended consequence' ad infinitum.

issues surrounding medpots social justice is a subset of [all] drug policy social justice. It needs no more clarification. A reader is expected to have some knowledge of the 'intersectoral' issues where justice and equity plays a role.

Douglas A. Willinger said...

I believe that the drug laws are a complete social INjustice.

However, that term "social justice" is one that I have seen most often used, indeed coined, by a particularly entity that uses it a bit differently then may be commonly presumed., CHCH 2007 said...

Perhaps the corrolary is "human rights" - those people who have them, dont particularily care about human rights, whereas those for whom the rights are impacted by controllable circumstance it could be said these rights denied are human unrights. If this looks silly it is because 'social justice' has scale. When one talks of social justice denied, one doesnt need to talk about social injustice - it is justice at the bottom of the scale of 'social justice'. When one talks about wellbeing.. it is not necessary to put a nominal scale ie: my wellness is bigger than your wellness, or ipsofacto my social justice is more honourable than your SJ. Injustice OTOH is Injustice. It doesnt need a reference. Our Global Drug Laws (esp single Convention enforcment) is UNJUST, DEFICIENT, and DISHONORABLE. On that it appears we have common ground.