What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid By Painkiller Drug Companies

Storm Shadow

Well-known member
Veteran
https://news.vice.com/article/leading-anti-marijuana-academics-are-paid-by-painkiller-drug-companies

Leading Anti-Marijuana Academics Are Paid By Painkiller Drug Companies

As Americans continue to embrace pot—as medicine and for recreational use—opponents are turning to a set of academic researchers to claim that policymakers should avoid relaxing restrictions around marijuana. It's too dangerous, risky, and untested, they say. Just as drug company-funded research has become incredibly controversial in recent years, forcing major medical schools and journals to institute strict disclosure requirements, could there be a conflict of interest issue in the pot debate?
VICE has found that many of the researchers who have advocated against legalizing pot have also been on the payroll of leading pharmaceutical firms with products that could be easily replaced by using marijuana. When these individuals have been quoted in the media, their drug-industry ties have not been revealed.
Take, for example, Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University. Kleber has impeccable academic credentials, and has been quoted in the press and in academic publications warning against the use of marijuana, which he stresses may cause wide-ranging addiction and public health issues. But when he's writing anti-pot opinion pieces for CBS News, or being quoted by NPR and CNBC, what's left unsaid is that Kleber has served as a paid consultant to leading prescription drug companies, including Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), Reckitt Benckiser (the producer of a painkiller called Nurofen), and Alkermes (the producer of a powerful new opioid called Zohydro).

Kleber, who did not respond to a request for comment, maintains important influence over the pot debate. For instance, his writing has been cited by the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police in its opposition to marijuana legalization, and has been published by the American Psychiatric Association in the organization's statement warning against marijuana for medicinal uses.
Could Kleber's long-term financial relationship with drug firms be viewed as a conflict of interest? Studies have found that pot can be used for pain relief as a substitute for major prescription painkillers. The opioid painkiller industry is a multibillion business that has faced rising criticism from experts because painkillers now cause about 16,000 deaths a year, more than heroin and cocaine combined. Researchers view marijuana as a safe alternative to opioid products like OxyContin, and there are no known overdose deaths from pot.
leading-anti-marijuana-academics-are-paid-by-painkiller-drug-companies-body-image-1410095755.jpg

Dr. Herbert Kleber, an anti-marijuana doctor who has served as a paid consultant to Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. Image via YouTube.
Other leading academic opponents of pot have ties to the painkiller industry. Dr. A. Eden Evins, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is a frequent critic of efforts to legalize marijuana. She is on the board of an anti-marijuana advocacy group, Project SAM, and has been quoted by leading media outlets criticizing the wave of new pot-related reforms. "When people can go to a 'clinic' or 'cafe' and buy pot, that creates the perception that it's safe," she told the Times last year.
These academic revelations add fodder to the argument that drug firms maintain quiet ties to the marijuana prohibition lobby.​
Notably, when Evins participated in a commentary on marijuana legalization for the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, the publication found that her financial relationships required a disclosure statement, which noted that as of November 2012, she was a "consultant for Pfizer and DLA Piper and has received grant/research support from Envivo, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer." Pfizer has moved aggressively into the $7.3 billion painkiller market. In 2011, the company acquired King Pharmaceuticals (the makers of several opioid products) and is currently working to introduce Remoxy, an OxyContin competitor.

Dr. Mark L. Kraus, who runs a private practice and is a board member to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, submitted testimony in 2012 in opposition to a medical marijuana law in Connecticut. According to financial disclosures, Kraus served on the scientific advisory panel for painkiller companies such as Pfizer and Reckitt Benckiser in the year prior to his activism against the medical pot bill. Neither Kraus or Evins responded to a request for comment.
These academic revelations add fodder to the argument that drug firms maintain quiet ties to the marijuana prohibition lobby. In July, I reported for the Nation that many of the largest anti-pot advocacy groups, including the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions for America, which has organized opposition to reform through its network of activists and through handing out advocacy material (sample op-eds against medical pot along with Reefer Madness-style videos, for example), has relied on significant funding from painkiller companies, including Purdue Pharma and Alkermes. Pharmaceutical-funded anti-drug groups like the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids and CADCA use their budget to obsess over weed while paying lip-service to the much bigger drug problem in America of over-prescribed opioids.
As ProPublica reported, painkiller-funded researchers helped fuel America's deadly addiction to opioids such as OxyContin and Vicodin. These academics, with quiet funding from major pain pill firms, encouraged doctors to over-prescribe these drugs for a range of pain relief issues, leading to where we stand today as the world's biggest consumer of painkillers and the overdose capital of the planet. What does it say about medical academia today that many of that painkiller-funded researchers are now standing in the way of a safer alternative: smoking a joint.
 

dj.scotfree

Active member
always... Always... ALWAYS... FOLLOW THE MONEY... Or the guiding interest at hand... And QUESTION the MOTIVES. Love & Light. DJSF
 

RonSmooth

Member
Veteran
The foot is in the door. Opinions are changing but more importantly -people are getting rich.
There is tremendous opportunity and billions of potential profit.

When people get rich, they want to protect their financial interests. Financial interests always trump delusional senses of moral preeminence.

There are large investments being made in the industry. These large donations are made and when a piece of legislation comes up that the corporate donor would like tweaked a bit in their favor, they call in a favor.

Our government literally does this right out in the open - all the time. It is a disgrace.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter if its harmless, dangerous, addictive, cancer curing, whatever. The plutocrats now have a financial interest and that will be protected.
 

stoned-trout

if it smells like fish
Veteran
weed aint dangerous unlike pharmaceuticals...ever read all them side effects...with weed all you get is cotton mouth and the munchies.....they will try anything to protect their own asses.....fuckers,,,tehy are scared cause once the truth is out they wont be able to capitalize on it much as anyone can grow weed and make extracts..you cant make oxy ect at home..well you can grow poppies tho
 

RonSmooth

Member
Veteran
If you really want to help the cause, we need to stop saying things like "weed is harmeless".

Smoking it is not harmless and there haven't been enough studies to truly determine its long term health effects. Anytime someone makes such a broad claim deserves to have it challenged. Nulius in verba.

If we are looking to educate, there are lots of claims that can be made with more factual evidence.

It seems clear that on the list of psychoactive drugs, cannabis ranks low on the "danger" factor
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
If you really want to help the cause, we need to stop saying things like "weed is harmeless".

Smoking it is not harmless and there haven't been enough studies to truly determine its long term health effects. Anytime someone makes such a broad claim deserves to have it challenged. Nulius in verba.

If we are looking to educate, there are lots of claims that can be made with more factual evidence.

It seems clear that on the list of psychoactive drugs, cannabis ranks low on the "danger" factor

Well I started smoking at age 11 and now I'm in my 50's and there is no damage apparent that has been caused by smoking marijuana other then perhaps the damage to the lungs that breathing smoke of burning plant material into the lungs might cause. Unfortunately I smoke cigarettes so anything I notice in that respect could be just as easily caused by that.

Also it's not like people just started using marijuana just a few years ago. It's been in use for thousands of years. Of that history there is no case of death being caused by cannabis that has ever been proven. The most harmful proven side effect is getting the munchies. Yet it is considered more dangerous then drugs advertised routinely with all sorts of harmful side effects from death to having an erection for more then 4 hours.
 

dddaver

Active member
Veteran
"If you have an erection lasting four hours, immediately call all your friends and brag". :biggrin:
 

rolandomota

Well-known member
Veteran
Weed is harmless if you dont smoke often. But if you smoke all day almost every day you spit out some dark colored phlegm but that goes away with a week or two of abstinence. I only smoke weed i have been smoking for 17 years about 10 of heavy smoking. Dry mouth hunger and feeling tired are some very dangerous side effects. Paranoia is the worst side effect really some people can get panick attacks lol. I learn to embrace paranoia its part of getting high sometimes. I think its mostly at first when your a newbie or light tokers get it too. Indica smokers get it with good sativa. So wheres the harm? In the price thats for sure prices are ridiculous thank the mexicans for cheap good weed.
 

stoned-trout

if it smells like fish
Veteran
you do realize you can eat it too...if smoking bothers you eat it.....safer than any pills they pump out
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
you do realize you can eat it too...if smoking bothers you eat it.....safer than any pills they pump out

True, but there's one problem with ingesting weed. It takes so long to hit it's easy to overdo it because you weren't feeling the effects quick enough. Good weed I can feel starting to hit before I've exhaled my first toke.

Almost every story I've heard of people eating too much and then freaking out all shared one thing in common. The person eating it didn't feel anything soon enough after the first brownie, cookie, etc and so they ate some more.

Also it's a whole different high in my opinion and much longer lasting.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top