
Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid by Painkiller Drug Companies - Multics
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/leading-anti-marijuana-academics-are-paid-by-painkiller-drug-companies
======
refurb
Drug companies are not trying to stop the legalization of marijuana.
Painkiller manufacturers has gotten into a lot of shit for the abuse of their
products (some execs almost went to prison and paid $34M in fines personally;
see Purdue Pharma [1]. How do they remedy that? By funding anti-drug groups.
Unfortunately there are no "bud is ok, but Oxycotin is bad" groups, so they
fund the ones that are anti-all-drugs. The main goal of funding these groups
is to stop abuse of their own drugs, while looking good doing it.

I work in the drug industry. Trust me, none of them consider marijuana a
threat. There may be one or two exceptions, but they certainly aren't the
companies making narcotic painkillers.

[1][http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/business/21pharma.html?_r=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/business/21pharma.html?_r=0)

~~~
harry8
"I work in the drug industry. Trust me," Sorry.

~~~
collyw
I accidentally upvoted you with a fat finger.

Come on this is a crap argument. I work in academic science. The irrational
paranoia that the many people have about scientists is unbelievable. Many seem
to think that researchers are in it for the money.

~~~
harry8
Feel free to downvote, or better yet comment as you did in the proper spirit.
The drug industry has earned its reputation. Skepticism is the proper
response. "I work in xx. Trust me" is pretty weak at the best of times but as
ever, falsifiable evidence trumps argument from authority.

------
hkmurakami
This kind of indirect monetary "investment" to maintain the moats to your
market reminds me a lot of how ridiculously cost effective lobbying can be to
companies like Intuit. $10mm/year in lobbying can virtually guarantee that
legislation remains in their favor, which blows any kind of product R&D in
terms of ROI out of the water.

It's frustrating and disheartening to read things like this, and yet the evil
business side of me can't help but think, "damn that's evil but so smart of
them..." :(

~~~
rayiner
> $10mm/year in lobbying can virtually guarantee that legislation remains in
> their favor, which blows any kind of product R&D in terms of ROI out of the
> water.

This is oft-repeated, but doesn't stand up to any sort of logical scrutiny.
You think there aren't dozens of parties with interests adverse to Intuit who
could pony up $10 million to lobby for the opposite position? I think of this
every time someone mentions lobbying by telecom or media companies: for what
Facebook paid for WhatsApp, it could purchase _all_ of the lobbying efforts of
the top 10 D.C. lobbying firms for the next half-century. You think the
Facebooks and Googles of the world are above buying legislation in business-
critical areas like telecom policy or copyright if it were that cheap?

What lobbying does is help you tap into a base of support that already exists.
In the case of Intuit, their lobbying dollars go to supporting Republicans and
Libertarians who _don 't want_ to make filing taxes easy. The cost and burden
of filing taxes is a major hammer people use to chip away at the whole concept
of progressive taxation. It's a major selling point of proposals like the flat
tax or consumption taxes. In a system with employer withholding, it's the only
major reminder of how much the government is taking out of your paycheck each
year.

That $10 million doesn't guarantee Intuit favorable legislation--it leverages
a deep divide in the polity that happens to advance Intuit's specific
interests. And at the end of the day, almost all effective lobbying, at least
at the federal level, takes that shape.

~~~
kyro
> _" The cost and burden of filing taxes is a major hammer people use to chip
> away at the whole concept of progressive taxation. That $10 million doesn't
> guarantee Intuit favorable legislation--it leverages a deep divide in the
> polity that happens to advance Intuit's specific interests."_

How are these not the same exact thing? I don't think anyone is claiming that
lobbying is akin to submitting a payment for immediate legislation approval.
We are all well aware that there are politicians and voter bases that may side
with a company like Intuit. But in either case, the money is being used to
influence legislation, whether that's a sure shot or to tip the scales. Rather
than legislate based on the merit of both opinions (eg. paid vs free tax
filing), companies are introducing often personal financial incentives for
politicians to dig their heels into the ground by claiming that a particular
opinion is Right and True. Deepening the divide does nothing more than cause
people to bury their heads further into their ideologies and works against
progress.

~~~
rayiner
First, there no "personal financial incentives." Lobbying isn't the same as
campaign donations, and corporations like Intuit are prohibited from making
direct campaign donations.

Second, legislation isn't based on "the merit of both opinions" but how both
opinions fit into the preferences and ideologies of the polity. And in a
democracy, that's probably precisely what legislation should be based on.

Third, keeping the above two points in mind, I think it's fundamentally
different to say that lobbying "guarantees favorable legislation" and to say
that lobbying exploits an ideological divide in the polity that "results in
favorable legislation."

The former seems wrongful. The second, in my mind, seems entirely appropriate.
I think it's fine to spend money to remind elected officials that a
particular, minor, policy decision (making taxes easier to file) will
undermine their efforts to make a different, major policy decision consistent
with the preferences of their voter base (lowering tax rates, reducing the
progressiveness of the tax code).

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>First, there no "personal financial incentives." Lobbying isn't the same as
campaign donations, and corporations like Intuit are prohibited from making
direct campaign donations.

You say the most fantastical things sometimes. I know you're aware of what
"Quid pro quo" means, but you apparently must believe it to be some abstract
conceptual thing without any practical use.

~~~
rayiner
> You say the most fantastical things sometimes.

I just know more about lobbying than most people who harp about it.

> I know you're aware of what "Quid pro quo" means

What quid pro quo is involved in lobbying? To me, a "quid pro quo" is "here's
a $5 million donation and if you happen to support our legislation, that would
be great." That's not lobbying, and that's illegal. Lobbying is hiring someone
to tell an elected official: "if you support these environmental laws, it will
affect the coal industry and 1,000 people in your district might find
themselves out of work." That's not a quid pro quo to me.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>I just know more about lobbying than most people who harp about it.

Well then, enlighten us all as to why it is such a lucrative business despite
your assertion that lobbyists primarily write persuasive letters extolling the
virtues of employment in the coal mines.

If you're not just being obtuse, and really cannot see the connection between
campaign finance and political influence, then it's time to question the
source of your lobbying knowledge. Have you merely collected a large number of
facts pertaining to lobbying?

------
robg
Sounds like they knew what would happen:

States with Medical Marijuana Have Fewer Painkiller Deaths
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8245373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8245373)

------
kazinator
The drug companies fight against any effective remedy that isn't covered by a
patent. Besides marijuana, another example is the substance DMSO (dimethyl
sulfoxide).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide#Medicine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide#Medicine)

If the remedy has any slightest shred of controversy attached to it, opponents
can latch on to it and blow it out of proportion.

~~~
AnkhMorporkian
DMSO isn't controversial in normal use. It's only controversial in the
alternative medicine context, where it does nothing. Despite the fact that it
does nothing for any disease by itself, it's claimed to cure everything from
lymphoma to emphysema.

DMSO is still used commonly in medicine. There's no stigma attached to actual
uses.

Edit: Spelling errors.

------
shanev
Pairs well with this book review of Bad Pharma:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8012263](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8012263).

------
danelectro
With no single known cure available for a given condition, one of the most
useful parameters in case treatment is chosen might just be simple toxicity
itself, depending on how the outcomes are judged by the treated, and treator
if involved.

In corporations which historically benefit enormously from regulatory and
media influence, it should not be unexpected for them to obfuscate or
propagandize to influencers and the public on topics such as harm vs benefit
to consumers, especially when the public is becoming threateningly powerful
politically on that exact subject.

If you are in the toxic materials business, nature may be against you and
depending on ethics, a very profitable approach has been shown to be not only
playing unfairly but underhandedly tilting the playing field in your favor at
the same time.

Not like there's any question.

------
bayesianhorse
So, the big news here is that pharmaceutical researchers (researching small
molecule drugs like THC) are largely funded by companies who earn their money
from a large number of small molecule drugs. Vice doesn't actually compare
pro-legalizing and anti-legalizing scientists.

I'll also get on the record that I would not recommend using THC containing
products for pain relief without medical supervision or advice.

Don't get me wrong: funding bias is a problem, but it gets overstated. The
scientific process has to deal with much worse problems, like personal egos,
evil publishing, malstructured career mechanics and outright fraud. Still,
"paying for the right results" is a lot harder than it is often taken to be.

~~~
pstuart
"Medical supervision", in my case, has been "let's see what these pills do for
you" \-- really just gatekeeper making educated guesses.

The worst THC is likely to do is give somebody a bad trip, like Maureen Dowd's
recent venture: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2014/06/09/why-
eati...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2014/06/09/why-eating-a-
marijuana-candy-bar-sent-maureen-dowd-to-paranoia-hell/)

Actual physiological harm shouldn't be a concern.

~~~
bayesianhorse
There is direct physical harm from THC. Not for everyone, not always, but it
would be naive to assume there isn't.

Indirectly it's a bad idea to manage pain by just one way, be it pills or THC
or whatever. The danger is that the conditions change or that the pain is
telling you that you need additional medical attention.

------
3rd3
_Da passt mal wieder alles wie den Arsch auf den Eimer._

Not sure what's that in English.

------
jedanbik
Follow the money.

------
MichaelGG
The article loses some credibility by saying Zohydro is a new opioid. It's
just hydrocodone, without the harmful acetaminophen additive. Nothing special.

Is pot an effective painkiller if you need to really think while getting
relief? Opiates don't have psychedelic effects or even the general mental
impairment of pot.

~~~
ewzimm
I have been prescribed opiates like hydrocodone before, and I can guarantee
that they significantly affect your thinking. I'm not sure how anyone could
argue otherwise. They are worse than being drunk. Is that really something
that people debate? Opiates don't impair your thinking? Am I responding to a
robot astroturfer?

~~~
MichaelGG
Well I'm suprised to see these responses. Even studies show opiate treated
patients have better cognitive performance (due to pain reduction,
presumably). The head of Germany's air force was a morphine addict. Plenty of
addicts are outed and go on to admit their "problem", yet they were
functioning fine.

Apart from people getting nauseous or passing out from opiates, I've never
heard people complaining about not being able to think. (Sample size ~30). In
fact, I've heard the opposite, that opiate treatment improves their ability to
think. Whereas with pot, it seems most people are seeking a mental state that
doesn't encourage detailed concentration.

Try looking at people's pupils as you go about your day. Doctors, lawyers,
executives... I've seen plenty of people with pinned pupils but no obvious
signs of cognitive impairment.

~~~
ewzimm
You definitely don't seem like a robot, but your initial comment was similarly
surprising to me. From personal experience, I would say that it's entirely
possible to act normally under the influence of opiates while being completely
affected by them. I think it's more a flaw in the way we judge people. At high
doses of opiates, a person will be incapacitated, but at low doses, I still
had my motor skills but felt like an entirely different person, like half my
brain was blocked. I compensated, of course, but I was painfully aware that I
was compensating, and I was often acting out of memory of how I would have
responded rather than naturally reacting to things. For me, it was more like
destruction of feelings and higher thinking while maintaining basic memories
and reactions to things. I could be completely logical while emotionless and
lacking any larger perspective or analysis. Maybe that kind of attitude is
just considered normal now.

I think weed makes people think more abstractly but opiates destroy feeling
and complex thoughts.

~~~
MichaelGG
Opiates surely affect judgment by adding a positive spin. Similar to how one's
judgment is affected when things are going well (say, a fantastic start to a
relationship). But I was referring to analytical thinking, not more subjective
feeling.

I can and have written a search engine/database while on opiates. I doubt I
could implement cat on pot.

~~~
ewzimm
I believe you, but I think we are talking about two different kinds of
impairment. I'm sure there are also effects of tolerance to be able to program
on opiates, and different people will react differently. The positive spin is
something I never experienced. I got the opposite negative perspective on
everything.

So will agree that it is probably easier for most people to think analytically
on low doses of opiates rather than cannabinoids, but I think there are other
aspects of mental blocks that manifest strongly on opiates, at least for
myself.

