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.

(Not to mention pot seems to dull intelligence; opiates do not.)

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...

For many people opiates are marginally effective because they were misprescribed.

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.

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.

Seriously? Im sorry but have you ever actualy met someone who developed an addiction to their pain meds!?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

How did you get this idea? Scrape some bark off a tree and steep it in hot water. You now have a consumable product.

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.

[1] https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-some-opiates-mixed... [2] https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002670.htm

Most plants would prefer to kill us rather than get us high.