Excellent and very moving WSJ piece about the children who suffer because of the addictions of their parents, and the very common scenario of grandparents being required to spend their retirement years filling the parental void. Sad stuff.
Link - (
New Window )
No indication of that as any sort of verifiable factor.
Acknowledged already. Also - cannot confirm that it isn't a factor, right?
No solid research actually exists as far as I can find, and so I revert to anecdotal evidence, of which there is plenty.
Got any evidence to the contrary of your own?
Big difference between cures everything and has efficacy for an incredible number of symptoms and conditions. So many of our pharmaceuticals are plant based, so why would it be surprising that Cannabis could be so beneficial?
Quote:
But the claims that pot cures everything and is the most miraculous wonderdrug of all time do make me roll my eyes.
Big difference between cures everything and has efficacy for an incredible number of symptoms and conditions. So many of our pharmaceuticals are plant based, so why would it be surprising that Cannabis could be so beneficial?
My wife suffers from chronic pain disorders, if the state of the law was different we would certainly consider her trying a course of therapy. However, I agree with Greg that this dogged insistence that marijuana is a wonder drug is remarkably annoying.
Quote:
A. Great Britain
With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.
As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53
A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56
To summarize, the British experience with decriminalized heroin in the clinical context was a dismal failure. When experts from British Columbia were debating whether to create a similar program, they made the following conclusions that are so important as to deserve to be quoted at length:
While some success is claimed in terms of reducing the incidence of young users, the following findings have also been noted:
1) The British approach has failed to attract a majority of addicts;
2) Many registered addicts continue to turn to illicit sources of
drugs;
3) Many registered addicts do not decrease their dosage over time;
4) Many registered addicts continue to be involved in criminal activity;
5) Many registered addicts are chronically unemployed or do not earn enough to look after themselves;
6) The death rate of registered addicts is much higher than that of the general population and may be higher than that of North American addicts;
7) Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase in the English addict population;
8) The black market for heroin continues to thrive;
9) Law enforcement appears to remain a necessary, costly and complex control measure.
In view of the above, it is felt that the application of the British approach to British Columbia would present serious dangers.57
I suspect, but cannot prove, that this isn't reporting from a particular POV. It appears that the indications reported from the referenced countries are notm in accord with your referenced "facts."
Quote:
No indication of that as any sort of verifiable factor.
Acknowledged already. Also - cannot confirm that it isn't a factor, right?
No solid research actually exists as far as I can find, and so I revert to anecdotal evidence, of which there is plenty.
Got any evidence to the contrary of your own?
All I can reference you to, which I already have, is the evidence submitted by the countries I've named. I understand that I haven't cited exhaustive evidence, but frankly, I'm not going to do that on a football website. I throw the responsibility to support your assertions to you.
By percentages opiods is heavily slanted to white victims, but in total more blacks OD from opioids than from crack (and cocaine combined).
if crack ever reached these same levels of epidemic regardless of race I believe it would get the same attention.
regardless of people's perceived biases, at least in my opinion. AIDS I think may be a good example, AIDS disproportionately hit the gay and black communities, black especially, and it received a lot of attention.
the linked site doesn't show demographics of each overdose death, but I found that elsewhere. Link - ( New Window )
Based on the chart you've linked the uproar over prescription opioids is insanity. The population has increased 15% over the time period of the chart (which looks scary but in absolute numbers is puny) and the number of deaths is actually stable or decreasing.
Twice as many people die each year from accidental falls.
Quote:
there were over 30,000 deaths from opioids, 7,000 from crack (all cocaine combined), which I believe is close to the peak for cocaine.
By percentages opiods is heavily slanted to white victims, but in total more blacks OD from opioids than from crack (and cocaine combined).
if crack ever reached these same levels of epidemic regardless of race I believe it would get the same attention.
regardless of people's perceived biases, at least in my opinion. AIDS I think may be a good example, AIDS disproportionately hit the gay and black communities, black especially, and it received a lot of attention.
the linked site doesn't show demographics of each overdose death, but I found that elsewhere. Link - ( New Window )
Based on the chart you've linked the uproar over prescription opioids is insanity. The population has increased 15% over the time period of the chart (which looks scary but in absolute numbers is puny) and the number of deaths is actually stable or decreasing.
Twice as many people die each year from accidental falls.
yes, legally prescribed prescription opioids. The commercial with the soccer mom who was in a minor car accident and prescribed 20 vicodin and became a junkie heroin addict is an extreme rarity based on what I've read. In fact the link between legal prescription use and heroin use seems slim at best.
The bulk of heroin users do use pills first or at some point, but not via legitimate prescription, according at least to studies I've read.
All I can reference you to, which I already have, is the evidence submitted by the countries I've named. I understand that I haven't cited exhaustive evidence, but frankly, I'm not going to do that on a football website. I throw the responsibility to support your assertions to you.
Guess you're missing my point. What you referenced is a claim that drug use/addiction, crime and disease are reduced with legalization - right?
You do understand that's not what I'm talking about - right?
I'm talking about something very specific. I'm concerned about long-term impact of legalization on career prep.
I've already told you that - and you haven't really responded directly to it. If you have any research to share related to this then please do. If not, it's okay to admit it and we can agree that the best we have is anecdotal evidence at present.
Thanks.
There are other studies- linked a time article about another one.
As far as Vermont goes, they have a very stringent medical program, so it's not easy to get a MMJ card, esp for pain. Strictly as it relates to opiate use, you will see the most impact when doctors are prescribing cannabis for pain instead of opiates. It's not a 1:1 comparison, but cannabis works for a large chunk of the cases.
Time link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13323066 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
But the claims that pot cures everything and is the most miraculous wonderdrug of all time do make me roll my eyes.
Big difference between cures everything and has efficacy for an incredible number of symptoms and conditions. So many of our pharmaceuticals are plant based, so why would it be surprising that Cannabis could be so beneficial?
My wife suffers from chronic pain disorders, if the state of the law was different we would certainly consider her trying a course of therapy. However, I agree with Greg that this dogged insistence that marijuana is a wonder drug is remarkably annoying.
All I can state is why be annoyed when you haven't done the research on the efficacy of it? The amount of conditions it can help treat is astounding, why would that annoy you? As I said, if you're interested in learning more you can read Sunjay Guptas words on. If you want to email me I'd be happy to send over other reading material as well.
100% not what I'm saying. It's a part of the solution, but it can't be maximized as part of the solution as long as the stigma around it continues.
My point, which I've made on here several times, is that this quest for an addict deserving of our sympathy is wrongheaded. All addicts are deserving of our sympathy, because they are people, father's, sons, mothers, daughters, siblings, etc. If it's primarily a pain problem your recommendation makes all the sense in the world. Now I agree with you by and large, but not because of the opiate/opioid epidemic though.
My point, which I've made on here several times, is that this quest for an addict deserving of our sympathy is wrongheaded. All addicts are deserving of our sympathy, because they are people, father's, sons, mothers, daughters, siblings, etc. If it's primarily a pain problem your recommendation makes all the sense in the world. Now I agree with you by and large, but not because of the opiate/opioid epidemic though.
Pain can mean a lot of things, and people can become addicts for a lot of reasons. Its a longer conversation but the the reality is, as long as humans exist, they will find substances to help them get through the days. Whether those are relatively harmless like caffeine, relatively harmless in moderation but incredibly damaging when abused like alcohol or incredibly harmful on all levels like heroin, they will be sought out and used.
Its INCREDIBLY hypocritical for the US government to allow so many opiate derivatives to be legal while continuing its outdated prohibition on another drug with far more medical applications, and without all of the incredible risks and downsides of the potential of them used recreationally.
We are fighting a war that is unwinnable on too many fronts. Spending DEA money, local policing, lost tax revenue on many levels- cannabis is, conservatively, a 100 billion dollar industry on the black market. None of that revenue gets taxed, not from sales, not from income, etc.
Its not a panacea for heroin abuse, opiate abuse predates cannabis prohbition obviously. It's undoubtedly one step further to help figure out ways to reign it in though.