4 ms·

The problem is this will never get funded or passed due to the Big Pharma lobbyists.

by jjuel 9y ago

ianai 9y ago
All that really needs to happen is federal legalization. Once that's done, it doesn't matter whether pharma is behind it or not. I bet though they would quickly release all sorts of cannabinoid products. (Not everyone wants to be high/timed release doses etc)
- jjuel 9y ago
  That is basically what I meant though. I don't see it being an easy sell to get federal legalization.
  - ianai 9y ago
    It seems like there should be enough lobby money there. Both tobacco companies and pharma companies could benefit from it.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Possibly, but it isn't what was written. Besides, there are lots of countries that aren't the US who might be more willing to approve this sort of thing. After all, those governments actually have stake in lowering health care costs (if this does, in fact, make costs lower) because they fund health care through taxes. It isn't like "big pharma" won't make money off of it, since they'll be able to grow their own crops, complete with GMO help to produce more of the "helpful" stuff, afterwards concentrating it into pill or inhaler form and checking for purity. The GMO and the final pill can likely be patented, giving them reason to pressure the government by lobbying. Something similar with health insurers, as lowering costs is in their best interests since Alzheimer's can be an expensive disease. The main lobby they'd have to worry about in the US is from places like private prisons and the like, because they can lose money with this - but even that is doubtful unless they change the laws for recreational use. Additionally, public opinion has been increasingly changing for this sort of thing, and that is starting to be shown through government policies (though slowly with the current administration's attitude), as evidenced by the fast-tracking of MDMA trials treating PTSD. I'm not sure that could have happened 20 years ago, and definitely not 30 years ago during the "Just say no!" heyday.
kortex 9y ago
Tired old argument. Just because X natural product (eg THC) is not patentable does not mean that you can't just come up with analog Y with similar activity, and patent that. Taxol for example.
TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
That might have been true 5-10 years ago, but there's a lot of $$$ in the industry now...enough to fund development of something like this.

The problem is this will never get funded or passed due to the Big Pharma lobbyists.

by jjuel 9y ago

The problem is this will never get funded or passed due to the Big Pharma lobbyists.

All that really needs to happen is federal legalization. Once that's done, it doesn't matter whether pharma is behind it or not. I bet though they would quickly release all sorts of cannabinoid products. (Not everyone wants to be high/timed release doses etc)

jjuel 9y ago
That is basically what I meant though. I don't see it being an easy sell to get federal legalization.
- ianai 9y ago
  It seems like there should be enough lobby money there. Both tobacco companies and pharma companies could benefit from it.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  Possibly, but it isn't what was written. Besides, there are lots of countries that aren't the US who might be more willing to approve this sort of thing. After all, those governments actually have stake in lowering health care costs (if this does, in fact, make costs lower) because they fund health care through taxes. It isn't like "big pharma" won't make money off of it, since they'll be able to grow their own crops, complete with GMO help to produce more of the "helpful" stuff, afterwards concentrating it into pill or inhaler form and checking for purity. The GMO and the final pill can likely be patented, giving them reason to pressure the government by lobbying. Something similar with health insurers, as lowering costs is in their best interests since Alzheimer's can be an expensive disease. The main lobby they'd have to worry about in the US is from places like private prisons and the like, because they can lose money with this - but even that is doubtful unless they change the laws for recreational use. Additionally, public opinion has been increasingly changing for this sort of thing, and that is starting to be shown through government policies (though slowly with the current administration's attitude), as evidenced by the fast-tracking of MDMA trials treating PTSD. I'm not sure that could have happened 20 years ago, and definitely not 30 years ago during the "Just say no!" heyday.

kortex 9y ago

Tired old argument. Just because X natural product (eg THC) is not patentable does not mean that you can't just come up with analog Y with similar activity, and patent that. Taxol for example.

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago

That might have been true 5-10 years ago, but there's a lot of $$$ in the industry now...enough to fund development of something like this.