13 ms·

Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid by Painkiller Drug Companies

293 points by Multics 12y ago

kazinator 12y ago
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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
  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.
hkmurakami 12y ago
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..." :(
- fragsworth 12y ago
  > damn that's evil but so smart of them... But this kind of thing can often backfire if there's a public outcry and then it won't have been so smart.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    It might back-fire for a few individuals at the company (e.g they might senf off a CEO or some department head with his golden parachute), but the company will continue doing it after the outcry stops...
  - kolbe 12y ago
    All bark and no bite. Citizens of the US haven't stood up to any immoral corporate practice and had a significant impact in decades. For example, the makers of OxyContin could (completely hypothetically) manufacture an opiate so powerful it rivals heroin, encourage doctors to prescribe it at many times the necessary rate for true medical pain-relief, watch millions of lives get ruined by addiction to their supposedly safe drug, and no group of people will ever get together in protest to put more than a couple percent dent in their profits.
- nikcub 12y ago
  Economic term is regulatory capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture relevant Onion from this week: http://www.theonion.com/articles/elderly-lobbyist-always-droning-on-about-how-littl,36793/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/elderly-lobbyist-always-dro...
  - baddox 12y ago
    Regulatory capture is one of the results. The primary economic mechanic that causes this is special interests vs. dispersed interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...
- 1stop 12y ago
  What do intuit lobby for? Do they have some sort of monopoly? Note: (I'm Outside US)
  - kyro 12y ago
    > "In the most technologically advanced countries, filing a tax return is free, easy and fast: Instead of taxpayers painstakingly calculating figures themselves, the government provides estimates of what they owe based on the very bank records and wages it already collects. Intuit, maker of the popular tax preparation software, TurboTax, has funnelled millions to oppose every effort to make tax day less painful." http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-millions-to-lobby-against-easier-tax-returns/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-mill...
    - judk 12y ago
      That makes no sense. Reporting income is is easy. The IRS will mail you a correction of you make an error. Deductions are the hard part, which is not govt tracked.
      - Crito 12y ago
        It's easy, but it is not as easy as it should be. They should be able to send me forms pre-filled for all of my sources of income (In my case, and in most cases, they already know all of that information. Some may still need to do some data entry.) What takes me a few hours could take me a few short minutes.
        yid 12y ago
        Government doesn't move at Silicon Valley's pace. The ability to cheaply track your income from all sources and bill you directly for your taxes is barely a few decades old.
        lemming 12y ago
        Plenty of governments in other parts of the world already do this. In Spain (and I assume in most parts of Europe), the govt provides a draft of your return, which most people just accept through their internet bank.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > $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.
  - Crito 12y ago
    The $10mm/year is the meager carrot. There is an implied stick, which comes in the form of much stronger support for opposing candidates come the next election cycle. $10 million is nothing; any lobbying group worth a shit can cough up that. You could probably fucking crowdfund it if you found a cause that 'the internet' cared enough about. But to make a difference you also need to convince your congressperson that you also have a stick and are able/willing to use it. Good luck crowdfunding that. A company like facebook has the money to have a stick, but these sort of tech companies are typically politically inactive enough to raise doubt that they would have the motivation ever use their stick.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I don't know why you're being downvoted - that's a pretty astute summary of the public choice theory problem. It's very hard to build an effective coalition for pragmatic pedestrian issues like making it easier to file taxes. Several presidential candidates have made it a plank in their platform but it's hard to get much traction for something people only think about once a year unless you also have a comfortable legislative majority.
MichaelGG 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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?
  - Fishkins 12y ago
    Just one anecdote, but I felt surprisingly clear-headed when I took oxycodone. Aside from feeling more relaxed and optimistic than normal, I didn't feel any of the fuzziness I feel when drunk. Maybe an external observer would have disagreed; I wasn't really interacting with people or attempting any mentally-taxing exercises. There are lots of other downside to opioids, of course, such as dizziness during physical activity and addiction.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    All I've ever felt on opiates is pleasantly tired. Of course, marijuana doesn't really impair me much either. Or alcohol for that matter. My ability to handle intoxication is sometimes distressing.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    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.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
minahalokitty 12y ago
Gosh buster attack audited facebook account
shanev 12y ago
Pairs well with this book review of Bad Pharma: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8012263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8012263.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
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.
- ossreality 12y ago
  yeah, funding isn't a problem. It's not like it's effectively illegal to study benefits of THC in the country. Sure. Do you even believe your own nonsense?
- kyro 12y ago
  What you say may be true, but I would much rather have public outcry against this practice than the opposite of overlooking the issue because there are bigger fish to fry.
- sachingulaya 12y ago
  There is no medical supervision for using THC. There are no guidelines that doctors follow or recommendations beyond recommending vaporizing or using edibles.
  - kyro 12y ago
    Not entirely true for non-pain relief uses. Dronabinol, synthetic THC, is sometimes given to treat nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy.
- diogenescynic 12y ago
  Marijuana is proven to be more safe than alcohol. Say what you will about the risks, but what about personal freedom? Why do we need the government involved in this decision at all?
jedanbik 12y ago
Follow the money.
robg 12y ago
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
3rd3 12y ago
Da passt mal wieder alles wie den Arsch auf den Eimer. Not sure what's that in English.
refurb 12y ago
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=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/business/21pharma.html?_r=...
- mistermann 12y ago
  I find this a bit hard to believe.....how might we know the truth though?
- harry8 12y ago
  "I work in the drug industry. Trust me," Sorry.
  - collyw 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.
    - nodata 12y ago
danelectro 12y ago
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.

293 points by Multics 12y ago

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.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
AnkhMorporkian 12y ago
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.

hkmurakami 12y ago

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..." :(

fragsworth 12y ago
> damn that's evil but so smart of them... But this kind of thing can often backfire if there's a public outcry and then it won't have been so smart.
- coldtea 12y ago
  It might back-fire for a few individuals at the company (e.g they might senf off a CEO or some department head with his golden parachute), but the company will continue doing it after the outcry stops...
- kolbe 12y ago
  All bark and no bite. Citizens of the US haven't stood up to any immoral corporate practice and had a significant impact in decades. For example, the makers of OxyContin could (completely hypothetically) manufacture an opiate so powerful it rivals heroin, encourage doctors to prescribe it at many times the necessary rate for true medical pain-relief, watch millions of lives get ruined by addiction to their supposedly safe drug, and no group of people will ever get together in protest to put more than a couple percent dent in their profits.
nikcub 12y ago
Economic term is regulatory capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture relevant Onion from this week: http://www.theonion.com/articles/elderly-lobbyist-always-droning-on-about-how-littl,36793/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/elderly-lobbyist-always-dro...
- baddox 12y ago
  Regulatory capture is one of the results. The primary economic mechanic that causes this is special interests vs. dispersed interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...
1stop 12y ago
What do intuit lobby for? Do they have some sort of monopoly? Note: (I'm Outside US)
- kyro 12y ago
  > "In the most technologically advanced countries, filing a tax return is free, easy and fast: Instead of taxpayers painstakingly calculating figures themselves, the government provides estimates of what they owe based on the very bank records and wages it already collects. Intuit, maker of the popular tax preparation software, TurboTax, has funnelled millions to oppose every effort to make tax day less painful." http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-millions-to-lobby-against-easier-tax-returns/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-mill...
  - judk 12y ago
    That makes no sense. Reporting income is is easy. The IRS will mail you a correction of you make an error. Deductions are the hard part, which is not govt tracked.
    - Crito 12y ago
      It's easy, but it is not as easy as it should be. They should be able to send me forms pre-filled for all of my sources of income (In my case, and in most cases, they already know all of that information. Some may still need to do some data entry.) What takes me a few hours could take me a few short minutes.
      - yid 12y ago
        Government doesn't move at Silicon Valley's pace. The ability to cheaply track your income from all sources and bill you directly for your taxes is barely a few decades old.
        lemming 12y ago
        Plenty of governments in other parts of the world already do this. In Spain (and I assume in most parts of Europe), the govt provides a draft of your return, which most people just accept through their internet bank.
rayiner 12y ago
> $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.
- Crito 12y ago
  The $10mm/year is the meager carrot. There is an implied stick, which comes in the form of much stronger support for opposing candidates come the next election cycle. $10 million is nothing; any lobbying group worth a shit can cough up that. You could probably fucking crowdfund it if you found a cause that 'the internet' cared enough about. But to make a difference you also need to convince your congressperson that you also have a stick and are able/willing to use it. Good luck crowdfunding that. A company like facebook has the money to have a stick, but these sort of tech companies are typically politically inactive enough to raise doubt that they would have the motivation ever use their stick.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I don't know why you're being downvoted - that's a pretty astute summary of the public choice theory problem. It's very hard to build an effective coalition for pragmatic pedestrian issues like making it easier to file taxes. Several presidential candidates have made it a plank in their platform but it's hard to get much traction for something people only think about once a year unless you also have a comfortable legislative majority.

MichaelGG 12y ago

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 12y ago
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?
- Fishkins 12y ago
  Just one anecdote, but I felt surprisingly clear-headed when I took oxycodone. Aside from feeling more relaxed and optimistic than normal, I didn't feel any of the fuzziness I feel when drunk. Maybe an external observer would have disagreed; I wasn't really interacting with people or attempting any mentally-taxing exercises. There are lots of other downside to opioids, of course, such as dizziness during physical activity and addiction.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  All I've ever felt on opiates is pleasantly tired. Of course, marijuana doesn't really impair me much either. Or alcohol for that matter. My ability to handle intoxication is sometimes distressing.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  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.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

minahalokitty 12y ago

Gosh buster attack audited facebook account

shanev 12y ago

Pairs well with this book review of Bad Pharma: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8012263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8012263.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

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.

ossreality 12y ago
yeah, funding isn't a problem. It's not like it's effectively illegal to study benefits of THC in the country. Sure. Do you even believe your own nonsense?
kyro 12y ago
What you say may be true, but I would much rather have public outcry against this practice than the opposite of overlooking the issue because there are bigger fish to fry.
sachingulaya 12y ago
There is no medical supervision for using THC. There are no guidelines that doctors follow or recommendations beyond recommending vaporizing or using edibles.
- kyro 12y ago
  Not entirely true for non-pain relief uses. Dronabinol, synthetic THC, is sometimes given to treat nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy.
diogenescynic 12y ago
Marijuana is proven to be more safe than alcohol. Say what you will about the risks, but what about personal freedom? Why do we need the government involved in this decision at all?

jedanbik 12y ago

Follow the money.

robg 12y ago

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

3rd3 12y ago

Da passt mal wieder alles wie den Arsch auf den Eimer. Not sure what's that in English.

refurb 12y ago

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=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/business/21pharma.html?_r=...

mistermann 12y ago
I find this a bit hard to believe.....how might we know the truth though?
harry8 12y ago
"I work in the drug industry. Trust me," Sorry.
- collyw 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.
  - nodata 12y ago

danelectro 12y ago

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.