Legalise some drugs, outlaw others?

[McLovin]

You miss the point, or perhaps just decline to see it. If the TGA were to approve cannabis for medical use, making it available via prescription on the PBS, that would likely inspire sudden, intractable back or other difficult to disprove pain on the part of so called recreational users, thus providing the taxpayer with the wonderful opportunity to fund their drug use.

Who said it would be on the PBS?

Then again, oxycodone seems to be the come down drug of choice these days, and it's on the PBS.

Of course they are and so they should be. I didn't suggest the laws re advertising in Australia would be changed. I said

Sorry, I infered from your statement that you believed the same would happen here.

Who exactly is 'giving out free samples of fentanyl'? It's an opioid much more potent than morphine.

Here you go...First month free.

http://www.abstral.com/hcp-resources/voucher-copay-card

 

[Julia]

Who said it would be on the PBS?

Then again, oxycontin seems to be the come down drug of choice these days, and it's on the PBS.

It would be a logical progression if it's considered by the TGA to be medically necessary.
Meantime, thousands of people have to pay for what are now private prescriptions for life saving drugs because they've been culled from the PBS on the basis of relatively few people needing them.

Here you go...First month free.

http://www.abstral.com/hcp-resources/voucher-copay-card

That doesn't constitute a 'free sample'. From what I can tell from your link the patient would have to have a doctor's prescription for the drug which would be available from various different pharmaceutical companies.
Presumably this is advertising from one of those companies which are competing for the legitimate medically prescribed business.

I don't care for it at all. But that's how they do it in the US. Hardly someone standing on a street corner, saying, "roll up, free sample of highly potent opiate derivative to anyone who wants it"!!

 

[McLovin]

That doesn't constitute a 'free sample'. From what I can tell from your link the patient would have to have a doctor's prescription for the drug which would be available from various different pharmaceutical companies.
Presumably this is advertising from one of those companies which are competing for the legitimate medically prescribed business.

What do you call giving someone a month's free supply of a powerful, highly addictive, dangerous drug? If someone is at the point of truly needing fentanyl they require it with or without the free supply. And then how do you know the drug has been legitimately medically prescribed, as opposed to just finding a doctor who will prescribe it after the patient saw the ad and the lure of free supply and shopped around?


Not trying to sound too argumentative here, Julia.

 

[McLovin]

And then how do you know the drug has been legitimately medically prescribed, as opposed to just finding a doctor who will prescribe it after the patient saw the ad and the lure of free supply and shopped around?

This is happening in rural NSW...And, speaking from experience, doctors in the US are much happier to prescribe drugs.

FORMER FENTANYL USER: Most drug users just go themselves and get other people to go as well. Yeah, you just gotta - just tell the doctor it's for back pain. That's what I used to do. And, yeah, after a while you get to be able to pick the doctors surgeries that'll write it or most drug users all talk and, yeah, find out which doctor surgeries do it and which doctor surgeries don't. In the country towns, I have had six doctors at one stage.

JOHN STEWART: Dr Zador says that most doctors in country towns are aware of doctor shopping, but fentanyl is still being made available to drug addicts.

DEBORAH ZADOR: Most doctors do their best with patients who have pain. Most patients handle their medications responsibly, but there's always a small number of doctors and a small number of patients who will fall through the cracks and a lot of this problem can be brought about by a even just a small number of prescribers.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3813757.htm

 

[DB008]

I haven't done much research but for controlling seizures etc. it isn't THC but a different component. That means strains can be developed that have THC low enough to not be desired by potheads. Such strains could be grown for medicinal uses and regulated.

It is in the youtube doco's I put up earlier.

Weed and Weed2 - There are kids with epilepsy who take marijuana oil - however, it is very low in THC but very high in CBD. The strain is named after a girl.

Charlotte's Web (cannabis)

Charlotte's Web is a strain of medical marijuana processed into a marijuana extract[1] that is high in cannabidiol (CBD) content, called Realm Oil and Alepsia. It does not induce the psychoactive "high" typically associated with recreational marijuana use.

The Charlotte's Web strain is named after Charlotte Figi, whose story has led to her being described as "the girl who is changing medical marijuana laws across America."[2] Her parents and physicians say she experienced a reduction of her epileptic seizures after her first dose of medical marijuana at five years of age. Her usage of the strain was featured in the 2013 CNN documentary "Weed". Media coverage increased demand for Realm Oil and similar products high in CBD, which has been used to treat epilepsy in toddlers and children. While high profile and anecdotal reports have sparked interest in treatment with cannabinoids,[3] there is insufficient medical evidence to draw conclusions about their safety or efficacy.[3][4]

Families who say they have run out of pharmaceutical options have moved to Colorado to access the strain. The demand has spurred calls for more research to determine whether these products actually do what is claimed. While the use of medical marijuana products is allowed in many U.S. states, the nationwide legal status of Realm Oil is less clear, but bills in several states are legalizing use of this particular form of medical marijuana, even though other uses of cannabis are still forbidden in some of those states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte's_Web_(cannabis)

Please watch - Video below.





After watching that, how can we say "no" ?

Sometimes I just shake my head and walk away when I think/realise how stupid the masses are....

 

[Julia]

What do you call giving someone a month's free supply of a powerful, highly addictive, dangerous drug? If someone is at the point of truly needing fentanyl they require it with or without the free supply. And then how do you know the drug has been legitimately medically prescribed, as opposed to just finding a doctor who will prescribe it after the patient saw the ad and the lure of free supply and shopped around?


Not trying to sound too argumentative here, Julia.

The point is that a doctor has presumably assessed the patient and determined that there is a need for the drug.
Supplying one month without charge doesn't change that. It's probably a common marketing ploy in a country which permits consumer advertising of pharmaceutical products. I think it's crap, but I don't make the laws in the USA.

I don't know what you mean when you ask "how do you know the drug has been legitimately medically prescribed? " Obviously if a patient has a genuine prescription from a registered medical practitioner then it has been legitimately prescribed.

People have always doctor shopped. They always will. It's a case of policing the doctor, something which I can assure you does happen. It just doesn't get publicised.

No problem with sounding argumentative. I don't see your remarks as such ever.

 

[DB008]

Natalie was interviewed on 7:30 Tasmania in the last half hour. I don't know how long ago it was recorded but she had no hair on her head.

Tight controls like with various other drugs should be managable. A Tasmanian company wants to have trials and are advocating it as a secondary pain relief, that is use more traditional painkillers before moving on to it if needed.

Charlotte's Web (cannabis)

Charlotte's Web is a strain of medical marijuana processed into a marijuana extract[1] that is high in cannabidiol (CBD) content, called Realm Oil and Alepsia. It does not induce the psychoactive "high" typically associated with recreational marijuana use.

The Charlotte's Web strain is named after Charlotte Figi, whose story has led to her being described as "the girl who is changing medical marijuana laws across America."[2] Her parents and physicians say she experienced a reduction of her epileptic seizures after her first dose of medical marijuana at five years of age. Her usage of the strain was featured in the 2013 CNN documentary "Weed". Media coverage increased demand for Realm Oil and similar products high in CBD, which has been used to treat epilepsy in toddlers and children. While high profile and anecdotal reports have sparked interest in treatment with cannabinoids,[3] there is insufficient medical evidence to draw conclusions about their safety or efficacy.[3][4]

Families who say they have run out of pharmaceutical options have moved to Colorado to access the strain. The demand has spurred calls for more research to determine whether these products actually do what is claimed. While the use of medical marijuana products is allowed in many U.S. states, the nationwide legal status of Realm Oil is less clear, but bills in several states are legalizing use of this particular form of medical marijuana, even though other uses of cannabis are still forbidden in some of those states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte's_Web_(cannabis)

Hundreds line up for legal weed in Washington state

SURROUNDED by thousands of packages of marijuana, Seattle’s top prosecutor needed some advice: Which one should he buy?

A new day, indeed.

Twenty months after voters legalised recreational cannabis for adults over 21, Washington state’s first few licensed pot shops opened for business, catering to hundreds of customers who lined up outside, thrilled to be a part of the historic moment.

The pot being sold at a handful of stores in Seattle, Bellingham, Prosser and Spokane was regulated, tested for impurities, heavily taxed and in short supply ”” such short supply that several other shops couldn’t open because they had nothing to sell.

Pete Holmes, Seattle’s elected city attorney and a main backer of the state’s recreational marijuana law, said he wanted to be one of the first customers to demonstrate there are alternatives to the nation’s failed drug war.

“This is a tectonic shift in public policy,” he said. “You have to honour it. This is real. This is legal. This is a wonderful place to purchase marijuana where it’s out of the shadows.”

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/hundreds-line-up-for-legal-weed-in-washington-state/story-fnkgdftz-1226983111022

Take a close look at the picture.....

 

[Tink]

Australia comes top of global list for recreational drug use

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...9b4a31f8ed34e88fc86601d3de332#social-comments

 

[DB008]

CURRENT E-PETITION

Subject: Legalising the production, processing and administration of medicinal cannabis
Eligibility: Tasmanian Citizens
Sponsoring Member: Bryan Green MP
Principal Petitioner: Natalie Daley
c/o 64 Wilson St
Burnie
Tas 7320

Num of Signatures: 379
Posting Date: 14/07/2014
Closing Date: 18/08/2014


http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/EPetitions/House/CurrentEPetition.aspx?PetNum=52&lIndex=-1

 

[DB008]

This is crazy.

Cops to the rescue.

Tink, this must be music to your ears....

Police raid Mernda home, seize medicinal marijuana oil parents used to treat son

CHIEF Commissioner Ken Lay says police were just doing their job when they entered a Melbourne mum’s home and confiscated cannabis oil that she was using to treat her son.

Epping Sexual Offences and Child Abuse police raided Cassie Batten and Rhett Wallace’s home in Mernda, 30km northeast of the CBD, on July 11.

After the oil was taken, Ms Batten said it was only a matter of time until her three-year-old son, Cooper, ended up in hospital.

Ms Batten said police confiscated cannabis oil used to treat son Cooper, who has severe brain damage, cerebral abscesses, hydrocephalus, epilepsy and cerebral palsy.

“We’ve already seen some seizures,’’ Ms Batten said.

“It’s just a matter of time now until he ends up back in hospital.”

Ms Batten said Cooper ”” who doctors thought would die after bacterial meningitis left him with the severe disabilities ”” used to suffer seizures lasting up to an hour and a half, but the illegal oil kept him alive.

She said her son was almost seizure-free and was taken off eight other medication types after using the oil.

The couple were released pending further inquiries, but Ms Batten said they faced charges including possessing a drug of dependence, and introducing a drug of dependence into the body of another.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/police-raid-mernda-home-seize-medicinal-marijuana-oil-parents-used-to-treat-son/story-fnglenug-1226985435941?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HeraldSunTopStories+%28Herald+Sun+%7C+Top+Stories%29&nk=18872c2f54e99acbb1000e4e8c46ea9c

 

[Tink]

DB, this isn't directed at you, its a general statement.

Why do they use these emotive cases to push to legalise drugs?
As has been stated, once legalised, the marketing targets the kids.
We are already the top in the world for recreational drugs and Mental Health is booming.
Who pays to look after these people when it all goes pear shaped.

I don't agree with these Greens policies for drugs and death.

 

[sydboy007]

DB, this isn't directed at you, its a general statement.

Why do they use these emotive cases to push to legalise drugs?
As has been stated, once legalised, the marketing targets the kids.
We are already the top in the world for recreational drugs and Mental Health is booming.
Who pays to look after these people when it all goes pear shaped.

I don't agree with these Greens policies for drugs and death.

* The current war on drugs has failed. It has always failed. It will never succeed. Unless you have 100% success with interdiction and removal of drugs from the community all that happens is the price increases as supply decreases. The money made by producers doesn't change. The street price definitely increases and decreases based on the success of law enforcement, but it has relatively minimal impact on the risk / reward benefits for the suppliers.

* The war on drugs is expensive. It clogs up the courts with trivial offences, it clogs up jails with relatively trivial offences. It's likely costing us in the high hundreds of millions each year, though I doubt the state and federal governments would like the true cost known by the public.

* The war on drugs increases risks due to the underground nature of production that is forced to occur. Legalise it and at least those choosing the use it will hvae quality control and minimised harm risks.

* The war on drugs generally only benefits the criminal element by making drugs involved a large premium for their illegality. Treat drugs the same way as legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol and use the tax revenues to provide credible harm reduction measures to the community. The left over funds can provided sorely needed funds for public health / schools / roads. To give you an idea of the revenue that's possible, tobacco tax alone 2012-16 is likely to raise over $5B. Tax currently illegal drugs and the users end up paying for the medical cots just like those imbibing and smoking currently do now (some would argue they actually pay more than the fair level of taxation).

* Decriminalise personal quantities - why make police waste their time arresting and charging someone for a joint or 1 ecky in their pocket? Quite regularly at Redfern station there will be 5 or 6 police and a drug sniffer dog on a late afternoon. No idea what the cost of that policing is - prob works out at $400+ an hour. I doubt they've ever caught a big fish in all the years they've been doing it.

)ver 50 years of policy failure. Surely it's time to take a different approach

 

[prawn_86]

The street price definitely increases and decreases based on the success of law enforcement, but it has relatively minimal impact on the risk / reward benefits for the suppliers.

I agree with most of your points except for the quoted part. In a small market like Aus there can be a slight fluctuation in price if there is a major bust in the very short term. What usually happens however is quality is decreased and the product is sold at the same price.

Longer term, looking at markets outside of Aus, prices have actually gone down, despite inflation. Over the past 10 - 20 years prices are about the same, if not lower, and taking inflation into account this is a big reduction

 

[McLovin]

The point is that a doctor has presumably assessed the patient and determined that there is a need for the drug.
Supplying one month without charge doesn't change that. It's probably a common marketing ploy in a country which permits consumer advertising of pharmaceutical products. I think it's crap, but I don't make the laws in the USA.

I agree I think it's crap too. My overarching point is that a drug like this does not need to be marketed to consumers. If you're at the point of legitimately needing this drug, it should be your doctor who makes you aware of it.

I don't know what you mean when you ask "how do you know the drug has been legitimately medically prescribed? " Obviously if a patient has a genuine prescription from a registered medical practitioner then it has been legitimately prescribed.

I mean prescribed for a legitimate illness, rather than just to feed an addiction.

People have always doctor shopped. They always will. It's a case of policing the doctor, something which I can assure you does happen. It just doesn't get publicised.

OK. But why can't this happen with medical marijuana? I guess I'm trying to reconcile your statements above with this from earlier...

Ok, so let's say we legalise cannabis for medical use. What is then to stop every pothead in the country availing themselves of it, perhaps even on the PBS, by claiming that their intractable pain has failed to respond to all known currently legitimate analgesia, and therefore they must qualify for access to prescribed cannabis?

If people are doctor shopping for fentanyl, they will for cannabis, I have no doubt of that. But do you deny the legitimate users, or worse, for them onto the black market, because of the abuse of the system by others?

 

[Julia]

I mean prescribed for a legitimate illness, rather than just to feed an addiction.

I'm sure you don't seriously think someone addicted to marijuana in whatever form, if it were made legal as an analgesic, is going to rock up to the GP and say "hey, I love this stuff: write me a script for it, willya?"

No, of course not. They will present with claimed severe pain, if necessary accede to the doctor's suggestion that first they try something he would usually prescribe, then come back and claim it didn't work, and could they please see if "medical marijuana" would help with this intense, intractable pain. No matter that no cause can be found for the pain, lots of pain has indeterminate origin.

So your recreational user gains 'legitimate' access to his drug of choice, and if on the PBS, the taxpayer funds it.

If people are doctor shopping for fentanyl, they will for cannabis, I have no doubt of that. But do you deny the legitimate users, or worse, for them onto the black market, because of the abuse of the system by others?

I haven't seen any randomised, double blind, crossover, controlled trials on cannabis as an analgesic.
Certainly some individual anecdotes suggest it is useful for some people. Such individual, uncontrolled experiences should never be sufficient for general approval of a drug for medical use.
If proper trials are done and published in journals of high repute, then it would be time to think about what safeguards doctors need to have in place to prevent abuse as far as possible.

 

[McLovin]

So your recreational user gains 'legitimate' access to his drug of choice, and if on the PBS, the taxpayer funds it.

Except as DB has pointed out, medical marijuana can have the bit that gets you high removed. If that is possible this whole disucssion becomes rather academic.

Make the Charlotte's web stuff PBS listed and make the other stuff available through pharmacies off the PBS and taxed the same as tobacco.

 

[Tink]

No, Syd, I would never agree to legalising drugs.
I see more harm than good in the outcome.

With our free society, unless that attitude changes with more responsibility, no way.
We have seen the effects of alcohol.

Just my opinion.

 

[Julia]

I think you know what I mean: One can fein illness and get a script.

Well, duh! Just what I've now said several times!!

I've outlined in some detail how easy it would be for recreational users to feign illness so I have no idea why you're continuing in this vein.

Unless you and DB are pharmacologists, it might be good to leave it to those who are suitably qualified to do the necessary research before jumping up and down about it being delivered to the general public.
It usually takes more than ten years and financial investment in the millions to complete all the required clinical trials before the FDA or TGA will consider a new drug application.

When you have some of the previously described randomised, double blind trials proving cannabis to be more effective than other analgesics, then that's when there can be some legitimate interest.

 

[DB008]

DB, this isn't directed at you, its a general statement.

Why do they use these emotive cases to push to legalise drugs?
As has been stated, once legalised, the marketing targets the kids.
We are already the top in the world for recreational drugs and Mental Health is booming.
Who pays to look after these people when it all goes pear shaped.

I don't agree with these Greens policies for drugs and death.

I agree with your stance on protecting our kids - not just from marijuana (but only high THC strains, not the strains like Charlottes Web), but also other dangerous drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

However, death (euthanasia), I totally disagree with you. How can you (or anyone else) dictate how I terminate my life?

If someone has terminal cancer, is in hospital and in extreme pain....who are you (we/society) to not help them. If they want to pass away, let's do that, let's help them - not keep them alive in pain for days/weeks/months delaying the inevitable.

Assisted dying: Church of England seeks inquiry

The Church of England (CofE) has called for an inquiry into assisted dying.

It follows a U-turn by former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who said he would back legislation to allow the terminally ill in England and Wales get help to end their lives.

The current Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby says the Assisted Dying Bill is "mistaken and dangerous".

But the Church said an inquiry would include expert opinion and carefully assess the arguments.

Speaking on behalf of the CofE, the Bishop of Carlisle, the Rt Rev James Newcome, said a Royal Commission would allow the "important issue" to be discussed at length.

He said the bill should be withdrawn to allow the inquiry to take place - a call which was immediately rejected by Lord Falconer, the Labour peer who tabled it.

Some 110 peers are already listed to speak when the House of Lords debates the private members bill on Friday.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28278324

 

[sydboy007]

However, death (euthanasia), I totally disagree with you. How can you (or anyone else) dictate how I terminate my life?

If someone has terminal cancer, is in hospital and in extreme pain....who are you (we/society) to not help them. If they want to pass away, let's do that, let's help them - not keep them alive in pain for days/weeks/months delaying the inevitable.

I always felt that those against assisted suicide have never sat next to a loved one racked with a terminal disease and had to just watch them waste away in agony. I still can see my grandfather slowly dying from lung cancer. It's a truly horrible death. It's hard to really describe to someone, let alone convey the trauma it inflicts on everyone involved. Most people would condemn you for keeping a pet alive in that kind of pain, yet we demand it for humans