• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Loss of rights due to inconvenience.

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 8:00 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Yes, sure, because selling marijuana isn't something they could do! I hate hearing crap about the evils of big pharmacology. I've heard this before, and I've also heard that they don't investigate cures for things because they'd rather get money over time from something that reduces symptoms... because curing stuff apparently means you no longer profit! Do you have any idea the fame and renown within the scientific community someone gets when they cure a disease?! Claims like this is downright silly. "Drug companies don't want marijuana legalized because, for some stupid reason, they certainly couldn't sell it themselves for profit! Der-he-herp!"

You do realize that I have a bachelors degree in pharmacy, right?

You know why I think that drug companies don't investigate cures, and like ongoing disease?

Because that's what my professors taught all of us.

I like to think that a 65 year old guy working in the industry his whole life, becoming a professor, and being part of the highest pharmacy body in the land might just know what the drug companies are up to.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 8:00 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Then come to the US. I think that you'd like it here.

-Duxwing
Yeah right.

Come to the US, where we put you through a radiation scanner at the airport, feel your balls, lock you up for life if you're a whistle blower, call you a terrorist if you like the constitution, steal your money to give to loser businessmen because they're "too big to fail", make it borderline impossible to buy non poisonous GMO free food, don't let the guy you voted for win the election even though he got more votes, and sing the star spangled banner while we steal all your freedoms.

Frankly, I'd rather go to communist China.
 
Local time
Today 9:30 PM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
I must admit that I am somewhat surprised that some people don't seem to agree with the concept of;

"Do as you will as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others".
You see, this exists regardless of any legislation. The suite of available actions to choose from never really changes, just the consequences for those actions. Morality is stochastic, which makes decisions a real clusterfuck. Check out this thread: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=16925
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 10:30 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
Yes, sure, because selling marijuana isn't something they could do! I hate hearing crap about the evils of big pharmacology. I've heard this before, and I've also heard that they don't investigate cures for things because they'd rather get money over time from something that reduces symptoms... because curing stuff apparently means you no longer profit! Do you have any idea the fame and renown within the scientific community someone gets when they cure a disease?! Claims like this is downright silly. "Drug companies don't want marijuana legalized because, for some stupid reason, they certainly couldn't sell it themselves for profit! Der-he-herp!"

you don't seem to comprehend the stiffness and conservatism of corporate bureaucracy.

of course the innovators that manage to seep through are given some fame and renown, ad-hoc. it looks better that way.
 
Local time
Today 9:30 PM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
hmm. could you please explain this?
Simply put, different choices are more or less acceptable under different sets of circumstances, and circumstances are always changing. Cannibalism was a much better choice for the inhabitants of a deserted island in New Guinea than it was for say... Albert Fish.

The kicker is that not only is change the result of the external environment, but of the decisions themselves through reciprocal determinism.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 10:30 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
Simply put, different choices are more or less acceptable under different sets of circumstances, and circumstances are always changing. Cannibalism was a much better choice for the inhabitants of a deserted island in New Guinea than it was for say... Albert Fish.

The kicker is that not only is change the result of the external environment, but of the decisions themselves through reciprocal determinism.

i wouldn't call that stochastic although it's not a linear mapping and not "deterministic" in the strictest sense but a complex and reciprocal system. now i see what you're going for. thanks.
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:30 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,592
---
Location
Crap
You do realize that I have a bachelors degree in pharmacy, right?

You know why I think that drug companies don't investigate cures, and like ongoing disease?

Because that's what my professors taught all of us.

I like to think that a 65 year old guy working in the industry his whole life, becoming a professor, and being part of the highest pharmacy body in the land might just know what the drug companies are up to.
Then I'm sure you can explain to me exactly why marijuana couldn't be sold, for profit, by pharmacies.
 

Solitaire U.

Last of the V-8 Interceptors
Local time
Today 1:30 PM
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
1,453
---
I understand that in RL there is a "trade off between freedom and security".

The problem for me is that I believe there shouldn't be such a trade off. I've yet to demonstrate a way such a system could be feasible though.

I suppose I support a Permissive Society.

Permissive in what sense? Here in Mexico, the age of consent is 12 (though you have to be 18 to vote, go figure). Is that really a good idea? Is that logical? I suppose if you're a child molester it's wonderful, but if you're on the other end of the equation, it could be somewhat dangerous. How would you like to be married off to a fifty year old before you're out of primary school?

But let's examine something simpler, like rights to use the streets. In my city, there are both traffic laws and police organizations that are tasked with enforcing them. It is technically illegal to double park, as it should be. So why is my daily 5 kilometer commute an arduous 30-45 minute process of dodging double-parked cars?

No enforcement (ie: permissiveness). Example: From 1 to 1:30 every weekday, every street within a 1 square kilometer radius of a school is reduced to gridlock. Why? Parents picking up their kids from school won't just double or triple park; if there's no space to pull out of traffic, they'll stop their car in THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, run into the school, grab their kid(s), load them into the car, and take off. This all happens to the tune of horns blaring in protest behind. It's not like they don't realize that what they're doing is causing major problems for everyone else.

So why do they do it? Because they know they can without consequences. The other day, and I exaggerate not in the least, I witnessed a mother, parked in the middle of the street, with her kid already in the car, standing there with her car door open CHATTING with another lady as if the line of traffic she was blocking didn't even exist. After about 30 seconds of this, the driver of the pickup truck directly behind her rolled forward and started nudging her rear bumper. Of course, that was all the excuse the bitch needed to start yelling at the guy about how her child was in the car, how aggressively the guy was acting, how she had as much right to use (block) the street as everyone else, blah blah before she finally got in her car and drove away.

I won't even mention the protesting teachers, campaigning politicians, and other holier than thou organizations that frequently block the streets on a whim to hold their marches, rallies, or whatever the fuck.

In front of our house are posted two bright, shiny, city-erected 'no parking' signs. They're bright and shiny because we asked the transit office to replace the old, faded ones in the hope that they simply weren't visible enough to the people who were constantly parking in front of our house and blocking our driveway. Well, the transit office was just as kind as could be and came right out to replace the signs, but yet the line of perpetually-parked cars remained. "What can we do about this?" we asked the transitos. "There's not much we can do about the cars parked at the curb, but call us about the ones blocking your driveway and we'll zip right over to cite them. "Cite" means they remove the license plates and the owner has to go to the transit office to pay to get them back, not that it matters much as every 5th car here has no license plates. Every day I park next to a two-year old Mercedes Benz that still has the dealer advertisement plates ("Nuevo 2011 de BONN MERCEDES Oaxaca!). A two-year old, 60,000 dollar car that the owner can't be arsed to license and register! WTF! Must be a high-ranking politician to get away with that, right?

No. Anyway, we called the transitos as instructed. When they showed up 45 minutes later, the offending vehicle was long gone.

Our solution was to erect our own barriers to force an end to the problem. Now there are two metal signs out in front of our house, bolted to the street, protecting our driveway from being blocked.

This is only one example of the perils of permissiveness. The moral is that permissiveness rapidly decomposes into rampant abuse. No doubt you yourself have a very disciplined, ordered, textbook idea of how a 'Permissive Society' should function, but the reality is that the average human animal is not willing or able to function in a permissive environment with awareness of 'respecting other people's rights'.

Actually, I believe people are fully aware, but just don't give a shit.

Trust me, you would not be happy living in what passes for a 'permissive society'.

SU
 

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Tomorrow 8:30 AM
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
643
---
Location
Victoria, Australia
I see my biggest error was assuming everyone else thinks like I do.

I suppose if we were all decent folk it would work.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 8:00 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
Then I'm sure you can explain to me exactly why marijuana couldn't be sold, for profit, by pharmacies.
No problem.

The root is in patent law. In short, one may not patent nature. So, no one could own a patent on marijuana, meaning that anyone could grow it, sell it, or consume it.

That's why you see pharmaceutical companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make a version of tetrahydrocannabinol that does what the natural version found in the plant does, while being different enough chemically to constitute a patentable molecule.

The other reason is that, long term, it doesn't pay. Drug companies get to hold a patent for about 8 years (depends on the country) and make their billions. After that, anyone can produce the molecule, which is why you have generic drugs coming out all at once after the patent expires, selling for 90% less than the name brand.

Something that drug companies do is develop a drug molecule, patent it, and then develop a slightly better derivative. So when their patent runs out on the first drug, they market the second, superior version. Then the third, then the fourth etc and the billions roll in.

If marijuana were legalized, then that would be the end of it, since they cant change the plant significantly enough for anyone to care about, and hence cannot retain their leading drug patent monopoly.

Further, marijuana is suitable for too many illnesses. So once the patent ran out on marijuana (not that a patent would ever be given), people could use it to treat illnesses that are covered by dozens upon dozens of proprietary drugs, blowing a multi hundred billion dollar hole in drug company bottom lines.

And lastly, marijuana is way too easy to grow to control. That's why it's called "weed". Sure, you could try to grow it and sell out of pharmacies, but once you establish that it is safe and effective, people would just grow their own, and since it is proven safe, you can no longer justify enforcement. People would grow it, pharmaceutical companies would scream, and the police would shrug their shoulders and say to the drug companies "we chase hard drugs, not enforce copyright/patent law - go sue instead" - just like they do to every inventor who has their idea stolen.

Asking that question wasn't the cleverest thing you've done today. Logic from all sides! Aaaaaaah! :storks:
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 4:30 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
I see my biggest error was assuming everyone else thinks like I do.
Apparently there are large categories of differences.



I suppose if we were all decent folk it would work.
Nope. Not all of us are decent.

Side comment: Emotions are a concise way of letting people know what you want.
 
Local time
Today 9:30 PM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
I see my biggest error was assuming everyone else thinks like I do.
^ Just won 8999 respect points. :applause:

Please do the world a favor and spread that perspective like it's a contagious disease.

:cutewhitekitten:
 

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Tomorrow 8:30 AM
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
643
---
Location
Victoria, Australia
Side comment: Emotions are a concise way of letting people know what you want.

If find them to be very innacurate. Calmly thought out words (upon who's definitions we agree) is the best way. At least it leads to the least amount of conflict.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 4:30 PM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
Yeah right.

Come to the US, where we put you through a radiation scanner at the airport, feel your balls, lock you up for life if you're a whistle blower, call you a terrorist if you like the constitution, steal your money to give to loser businessmen because they're "too big to fail", make it borderline impossible to buy non poisonous GMO free food, don't let the guy you voted for win the election even though he got more votes, and sing the star spangled banner while we steal all your freedoms.

Frankly, I'd rather go to communist China.

Your complaints:
1.) The airport guards X-Ray your luggage, not you.

2.) Pat-downs are over.

3.) Snowden is on the loose, along with hundreds of others.

4.) "liking the Constitution," is vague and almost sets up a bogeyman-child dynamic when the government is hardly so cohesive.

5.) "steal"? The Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, and letting those businesses fail really would have destroyed the financial sector: We're still picking up the pieces from Bear Stern's instantaneous shutdown.

6.) You realize that GMO has been practiced since the dawn of agriculture via selective breeding and that pesticides can be washed off with tap water, right? Somehow, we're all still here.

7.) That's the electoral college for you. As far as I know, it's happened once in what, now 2013 - 1776 = 237 years of operation, and on a statistically insignificant margin? I agree that the vote should be popular, but keep this problem in perspective.

8.) All of them? Like the one that tens of thousands of Americans who thought like you exercised to make that same complaint during election season a year ago? Or the one that Texans exercise to leave their state with more guns than people? And on, and on. I understand your abstract criticism of increasing security measures to defend freedom, but we're ultimately talking about a real thing and therefore should not in our arguments assume that every small thing that we presently don't like will become a gigantic terror in the future.

In Communist China, you wouldn't have even reached this forum. :/

-Duxwing
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:30 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,592
---
Location
Crap
No problem, etc...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/why-im-not-convinced-big_b_111523.html

I don't have a degree in it, but I'm generally pretty good at sorting through bullshit. Your claims seem like it to me. The link I provided basically wrote my post for me, and better. I admit I may still be wrong, you may be right, but you're going to have to provide some actual evidence and reasoning, instead of base claims so often found on pro-marijuana/anti-corporation conspiracy web-sites. Having a degree of some kind doesn't make you immune to silly BS, as evidence by there being a medical doctor or two supporting every new fad diet.
 

Solitaire U.

Last of the V-8 Interceptors
Local time
Today 1:30 PM
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
1,453
---
If find them to be very innacurate. Calmly thought out words (upon who's definitions we agree) is the best way. At least it leads to the least amount of conflict.

'Calm' is an emotion...one of my favorites in fact, when it's genuine that is. Apparently, it's also the most difficult to master. That's probably a good thing, as it's also one of the more difficult emotions to read, and one of the easiest to exploit.

That said, I tend to distrust 'calm', since 'calm' is so frequently used to mask underlying emotions, so frequently just a facade.

Most emotions though, are rather simple to read, and if one is an astute communicator, much can be deciphered from the words a person uses to convey their emotions.

Avoid getting sucked into that "I'm INTP, I must circumvent the emotional quotient." stereotype. Following such an inane path will only be effective in isolating you from approximately 92% of your fellow human beings, while the other 8% that you believe you can relate to will most likely be fucking you over under the guise of 'calm'. :)

SU
 

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Tomorrow 8:30 AM
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
643
---
Location
Victoria, Australia
@solitaire U.

I refuse to think so little of humanity as a whole.

Maybe I'm just being naive.
 

just george

Bull**** Artist ENTP 8w7
Local time
Tomorrow 8:00 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
881
---
Location
That madhouse planet in the Milky Way
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-armentano/why-im-not-convinced-big_b_111523.html

I don't have a degree in it, but I'm generally pretty good at sorting through bullshit. Your claims seem like it to me. The link I provided basically wrote my post for me, and better. I admit I may still be wrong, you may be right, but you're going to have to provide some actual evidence and reasoning, instead of base claims so often found on pro-marijuana/anti-corporation conspiracy web-sites. Having a degree of some kind doesn't make you immune to silly BS, as evidence by there being a medical doctor or two supporting every new fad diet.
Let me get this straight:

My first post listed a slew of reasons that marijuana was illegal, including drug companies and cops/prisons.

You then ask me to show why pharmacies can't sell marijuana, which I did.

You then link an article that says that after drug companies, cops also lobby against legislative change - which is what I said in my first post.

Then you say that my post sounds like BS, even though the article you posted supports what I said.

No offense, but it's an abortion of logic. Dead, half formed logic in a bucket looking nasty. :rip:

No one should have to see that, dude.
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:30 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,592
---
Location
Crap
Let me get this straight:

My first post listed a slew of reasons that marijuana was illegal, including drug companies and cops/prisons.

You then ask me to show why pharmacies can't sell marijuana, which I did.

You then link an article that says that after drug companies, cops also lobby against legislative change - which is what I said in my first post.

Then you say that my post sounds like BS, even though the article you posted supports what I said.

No offense, but it's an abortion of logic. Dead, half formed logic in a bucket looking nasty. :rip:

No one should have to see that, dude.
... You should probably read the article.
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 9:30 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
---
Location
stockholm
farming companies couldnt sell marijuana because while they would make a lot of money doing it they wouldnt make as much money as they would if it were easier to patent?

dun add up
 
Local time
Today 9:30 PM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
farming companies couldnt sell marijuana because while they would make a lot of money doing it they wouldnt make as much money as they would if it were easier to patent?

dun add up
The same phenomenon was highlighted here: http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=371754&postcount=47

Selling a more effective medication that had already been patented as a dye for decades wouldn't make as much profit as a less effective version with an altered molecular structure, and so progress was held back in the name of profit.
but you're going to have to provide some actual evidence and reasoning
Prontosil (mentioned above), as detailed in the book "The Demon Under The Microscope" is a perfect case study.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 8:30 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
Granted they'd have little 'need' to carry them in public, but maybe they are wanting to show off a prized piece in their collection.

Apparently the tens of millions of dollars and weeks it takes to draft and refine new legislations is all worth it as long as Captain Redneck gets to have his dick measuring contest.
 

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Tomorrow 8:30 AM
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
643
---
Location
Victoria, Australia
@redbaron

Do you really think that all gun collectors (or owners) are 'rednecks'? Can you only conceive of a 'dick measuring contest' as a reason for showing off items in one's collection?
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow 8:30 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
I don't have a degree in it, but I'm generally pretty good at sorting through bullshit. Your claims seem like it to me. The link I provided basically wrote my post for me, and better.

- good at sorting through bullshit
- uses huffingtonpost as an information source

IHNIWIAD.jpg
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:30 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,592
---
Location
Crap
- good at sorting through bullshit
- uses huffingtonpost as an information source

It wasn't so much the information as the reasoning. There was almost zero new information.
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:30 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,592
---
Location
Crap
The same phenomenon was highlighted here: http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=371754&postcount=47

Selling a more effective medication that had already been patented as a dye for decades wouldn't make as much profit as a less effective version with an altered molecular structure, and so progress was held back in the name of profit.

Prontosil (mentioned above), as detailed in the book "The Demon Under The Microscope" is a perfect case study.
A case study of how one particular sort of drug which wasn't very profitable ushered in a new era of similar, patentable drugs which were profitable and effective?
 

Cherry Cola

Banned
Local time
Today 9:30 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
---
Location
stockholm
@redbaron

Do you really think that all gun collectors (or owners) are 'rednecks'? Can you only conceive of a 'dick measuring contest' as a reason for showing off items in one's collection?

I think Sam Harris made the best case I've seen yet. But I'm still pro gun control. Nonetheless, you needn't be a redneck and sophisticated arguments can be found on both sides of the issues.

ah here it is:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

Redneck indeed lol.
 
Local time
Today 9:30 PM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
A case study of how one particular sort of drug which wasn't very profitable ushered in a new era of similar, patentable drugs which were profitable and effective?
A case study of profit holding back knowledge of the first chemotheraputic antibiotic from the public for at least 3 years after its discovery in 1932 (Gerhard Domagk noted the effects in 1929 but was suppressed by Bayer, so actually 6 years) because it happened to be cheap, easy to produce, and readily available.

The same historical pattern of drug development is evident in antidepressants, opiate painkillers, erectile dysfunction meds, and female birth control: Sit on the most effective solution while selling the less effective until the less effective is no longer profitable. All one needs to do is juxtapose the dates that new drugs hit the market with patent expiration dates.

A profit motive is exactly why cannabis synthetics & derivatives (sativex, dronabinol, nabilone, dexanabinol, ajulemic acid, cannabinor...) are legal in the modern age yet cannabis itself is not.

Why wouldn't the same model apply to cannabis? What competing reason is there, and what evidence is exists in support of it?
 

Solitaire U.

Last of the V-8 Interceptors
Local time
Today 1:30 PM
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
1,453
---
@solitaire U.

I refuse to think so little of humanity as a whole.

Maybe I'm just being naive.

Better to err on the side of caution until humanity irrefutably proves itself trustworthy.
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:30 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,592
---
Location
Crap
A case study of profit holding back knowledge of the first chemotheraputic antibiotic from the public for at least 3 years after its discovery in 1932 (Gerhard Domagk noted the effects in 1929 but was suppressed by Bayer, so actually 6 years) because it happened to be cheap, easy to produce, and readily available.

The same historical pattern of drug development is evident in antidepressants, opiate painkillers, erectile dysfunction meds, and female birth control: Sit on the most effective solution while selling the less effective until the less effective is no longer profitable. All one needs to do is juxtapose the dates that new drugs hit the market with patent expiration dates.

A profit motive is exactly why cannabis synthetics & derivatives (sativex, dronabinol, nabilone, dexanabinol, ajulemic acid, cannabinor...) are legal in the modern age yet cannabis itself is not.

Why wouldn't the same model apply to cannabis? What competing reason is there, and what evidence is exists in support of it?
Yet it wasn't illegalized, nor does it seem it would have been if the pharmacy companies could make it so. I'm not claiming big pharma is perfect, that it releases the best of everything right away, I'm only claiming that pharma is not trying to keep marijuana illegal. Specifically; It could only hurt the sale of drugs which are similar to or derived from it and would suffer a lack of popularity due to bad press or being illegalized entirely.

Selling things propagandized against or which is illegal is bad for business.
 
Local time
Today 9:30 PM
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
5,022
---
Yet it wasn't illegalized, nor does it seem it would have been if the pharmacy companies could make it so. I'm not claiming big pharma is perfect, that it releases the best of everything right away, I'm only claiming that pharma is not trying to keep marijuana illegal. Specifically; It could only hurt the sale of drugs which are similar to or derived from it and would suffer a lack of popularity due to bad press or being illegalized entirely.

Selling things propagandized against or which is illegal is bad for business.
You're discounting the efficacy of cannabis. It's certainly no panacea, but treating pain and anxiety alone warrant lobbying against its legalization. Where do pharma's revenues come from? Depression/anxiety, pain, and heart disease. It has nothing to do with the molecules, but what the molecules treat.

There's no evidence of an impending decline in popularity or bad press, just as there's very little evidence of negative side effects. Propaganda and legality certainly don't inhibit the current market, black or otherwise. Dispensaries in states where it's been "legalized" are still in violation of federal law.
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:30 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,592
---
Location
Crap
You're discounting the efficacy of cannabis. It's certainly no panacea, but treating pain and anxiety alone warrant lobbying against its legalization. Where do pharma's revenues come from? Depression/anxiety, pain, and heart disease. It has nothing to do with the molecules, but what the molecules treat.

There's no evidence of an impending decline in popularity or bad press, just as there's very little evidence of negative side effects. Propaganda and legality certainly don't inhibit the current market, black or otherwise. Dispensaries in states where it's been "legalized" are still in violation of federal law.

No, the current propaganda against it, that we get taught in elementary school, with no effective anti-propaganda against it. Further, those effects exactly are what pharma has to gain from what they've already gotten from the plant. It's not like everyone's going to start smoking pot just because it's legal; pill form medication of a condensed or altered or specific chemical would still have a large market, presuming other medications aren't already better for the specific symptoms it's being used to treat. At any rate, if a drug is made from pot, and people have a bad opinion of pot, they won't use that pill if they have an alternative, hence the propaganda problem, and the legality of it is obviously a problem for selling drugs taken from marijuana directly, or which are similar enough that the same law would apply to it.

Marijuana being illegal does not help pharma.
 
Top Bottom