Is Marijuana an 'Exit Drug'

[Treetops]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/marijuana-exit-drug-study-suggests-some-are-taking-it-substitute-prescription-drugs-and?akid=9862.136153.6UjWYt&rd=1&src=newsletter767670&t=15

Study Suggests Some Are Taking It as a Substitute for Prescription Drugs and Alcohol
A surprising three quarters of medical cannabis consumers say they subbed in pot for more harmful substances.
December 26, 2012 |
Photo Credit: ShutterStock.com
Like this article?Join our email list:Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.


Three quarters of medical cannabis consumers report using it as a substitute for prescription drugs, alcohol, or some other illicit substance, according to survey data published in the journal Addiction Research and Theory.

An international team of investigators from Canada and the United States assessed the subjective impact of marijuana on the use of licit and illicit substances via self-report in a cohort of 404 medical cannabis patients recruited from four dispensaries in British Columbia, Canada.

Researchers reported that subjects frequently substituted cannabis for other substances, including conventional pharmaceuticals. Authors reported:

“Over 41 percent state that they use cannabis as a substitute for alcohol (n=158), 36.1 percent use cannabis as a substitute for illicit substances (n=137), and 67.8 percent use cannabis as a substitute for prescription drugs (n=259). The three main reasons cited for cannabis-related substitution are ‘less withdrawal’ (67.7 percent), ‘fewer side-effects’ (60.4 percent), and ‘better symptom management’ suggesting that many patients may have already identified cannabis as an effective and potentially safer adjunct or alternative to their prescription drug regimen.”

Overall, 75.5 percent (n=305) of respondents said that they substitute cannabis for at least one other substance. Men were more likely than women to report substituting cannabis for alcohol or illicit drugs.

Authors concluded: “While some studies have found that a small percentage of the general population that uses cannabis may develop a dependence on this substance, a growing body of research on cannabis-related substitution suggests that for many patients cannabis is not only an effective medicine, but also a potential exit drug to problematic substance use. Given the credible biological, social and psychological mechanisms behind these results, and the associated potential to decrease personal suffering and the personal and social costs associated with addiction, further research appears to be justified on both economic and ethical grounds. Clinical trials with those who have had poor outcomes with conventional psychological or pharmacological addiction therapies could be a good starting point to further our under- standing of cannabis-based substitution effect.”

Previous studies have similarly demonstrated cannabis’ potential efficacy as an exit drug. A 2010 studypublished in the Harm Reduction Journal reported that cannabis-using adults enrolled in substance abuse treatment programs fared equally or better than nonusers in various outcome categories, including treatment completion. A 2009 study reported that 40 percent of subjects attending a California medical cannabis dispensary reported using marijuana as a substitute for alcohol, and 26 percent used it to replace their former use of more potent illegal drugs. A separate 2009 studypublished in the American Journal on Addictions reported that moderate cannabis use and improved retention in naltrexone treatment among opiate-dependent subjects in a New York state inpatient detoxification program.

Full text of the study, “Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs: A dispensary-based survey of substitution effect in Canadian medical cannabis patients,” appears online in Addiction Research and Theory. NORML Advisory Board Member Mitch Earleywine is a co-author of this study.

 

[Puffaluffagus]

Yes it is, and it's also a great tool for long term sobriety.

It seems like when a person goes through traditional treatment(12 step) and has to abstain from using anything, they eventually rattle apart, and return to their drug of choice.

It came down to this for me.
I told myself I could have as much weed as I wanted, anytime I wanted it, but I was never going to do cocaine again, and it worked.(although drug addicts should never say never)

 

[fungzyme]

Thanks for posting this - I love this research. In the real world, absolutely nothing is harmless and somehow getting even a significant portion of society to totally abstain from everything that causes them or society harm is laughably naive. Why not substitute something that's enjoyable, life-affirming and virtually non-toxic? (This includes subbing for some risky prescription drugs) - harm to individuals and society way way down. Seems like it should be a no-brainer...

 

[Fred el Gato]

Weed may be beneficial in this situation but the mental change needs to come first, the person needs to be ready to leave behind addiction or nothing will work.

 

[Treetops]

Well, When growing up, my Dad was an alky..never home...I thought, hell, thats the kind of guy I should be...Yeah right! Not!!! The herb has helped me deal with the "Drink"..been Sober since 2006, and havent touched a drop since...Thank God for the wonderful plant and its helpful properties!!!!

Thanks to this great forum as well...
Peace,
Treetops

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

This is why Cannabis was originally made illegal through propaganda and lobbying from its competitors.

This is why it is illegal still. Big Pharma, big tobacco, and big alcohol dont want to lose 41 percent of their business to cannabis.

A long time ago when making it illegal they knew it was just a regulation. After that they artificially grew in size because they had no real competitor. They knew if that regulation were ever removed they would lose their shorts.

 

[trichrider]

drop your drawers BIGPHARMA this juggernaut is gaining momentum...

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

http://www.buildinghealthfromwithin.com/sellingsickness.pdf

Thirty years ago Henry Gadsden, chief executive of one of the world’s most
prominent drug companies, Merck tells Fortune magazine of his distress that the
company’s potential market is limited to sick people. He says it is his dream to make
drugs for healthy people. Because then, Merck could sell to everyone. Three decades
later, the marketing strategies of the world’s biggest drug companies target the healthy
and the well. At a time when many people are leading longer, healthier, and more vital
lives than their ancestors, advertising and awareness-raising campaigns, funded by the
$500 billion pharmaceutical industry, are changing the way people think about illness in
order to expand the market for drugs.

Vince Parry, an expert in advertising, specializes in the most sophisticated form of selling
medicines. He works with drug companies to help create new diseases. In an article titled,
“The art of branding a condition”, Parry reveals the ways in which companies are involved
in “fostering the creation” of medical disorders. Sometimes an obscure condition is given
renewed attention, sometimes an old disease is redefined and renamed, and sometimes
a whole new dysfunction is created. A recent Reuters Business Insight report designed
for drug company executives contends that the ability to “create new disease markets” is
bringing in billions of dollars in drug sales.

Mild problems are being diagnosed as serious diseases.
S hyness is a symptom of social anxiety disorder.
The natural change of life, menopause, is considered a
disease of hormone deficiency.
E veryday sexual difficulties are defined as sexual dysfunctions.
Distracted office workers now have adult ADD.
H ealthy middle-aged women have a silent bone disease called osteoporosis.
Fit middle-aged men have a lifelong condition called high cholesterol.
Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is so controversial some researchers claim
it doesn’t exist.
For most healthy people, there are much cheaper, safer and more effective ways to stay
healthy such as, improving diet, increasing exercise, and not smoking. The pharmaceutical
industry’s influence over doctors’ practices, medical education, and scientific research
is widespread and controversial. Pharmaceutical companies have a significant influence
on the way physicians prescribe medicines and the way conditions like irritable bowel
syndrome, menopause, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, depression, osteoporosis,
ADD and PMDD are defined and promoted.

Medicines sometimes cause the very harm they are designed to prevent.
-A drug claiming to help with common bowel problems may lead to deadly constipation for some people.
-Long-term hormone replacement therapy increases the risk of heart attacks for women.
-Antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking among the young.
-Antidepressants prescribed for PMDD carry many side effects, including serious sexual difficulties.
-At least one of the cholesterol-lowering drugs has been withdrawn from the market because it is implicated in causing deaths.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s mission is to
make sure medicines are safe and effective for the almost
300 million Americans it serves. Its deliberations determine
which drugs get approved for sale into the massive U.S.
market, and which don’t. It also influences the actions of
drug regulators and health care advocacy organizations
around the world. As a result, the decisions made there have
a profound effect on some of the world’s most profitable
corporations.

Paul Stolley, a senior consultant at the FDA, a distinguished
professor of medicine at several leading universities, a
member of the National Academy of Science, and a longtime
expert in drug safety, was asked by his superiors
to look into a medication that had just come on to the
market. GlaxoSmithKline’s Lotronex had been recently
approved for women with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS),
a condition characterized by stomach pains and difficulties
with constipation and diarrhea.
IBS is said to be a disease affecting up to one in every five
people in the western world, nearly 45 million in the U.S.
alone. During his first year at the agency, Paul Stolley was
suggesting to his FDA superiors that they consider pulling
the new drug from the market because of serious concerns
about its safety. Prior to his arrival, severe side effects had
been reported.

Two side effects in particular emerged as the
most serious and potentially fatal:

-Severe constipation - after taking the drug, the patient’s feces would become so
impacted within their bowel that the bowel wall perforated, leading to potentially
fatal infections inside the body.

-Ischaemic colitis - similar to a heart attack happening in the bowel, where the blood
simply stops flowing to it.

Reading the reports arriving at the FDA, and studying all the scientific data from the
drug’s original clinical trials, Stolley and other safety experts inside the FDA conclude
that some of those taking the drug are suffering life-threatening side effects far worse
than the symptoms the drug is prescribed for. Stolley discovers that more than 50
percent of the FDA’s work checking the safety and effectiveness of drugs is paid for by
the companies whose products are being reviewed.
The FDA rejects calls for a ban, but facing evidence of dangerous side effects and negative
media coverage, the pharmaceutical company decides to voluntarily withdraw the drug
from the U.S. market. Lotronex is re-approved eighteen months later. Internal FDA
emails, that surface publicly some time later, suggest that in this case GS K officials and
FDA staff were working closely to ensure that the advisory committee was going to give
the advice that the company and the senior FDA officials sought after.

Two surveys of FDA staff:
The first survey by Public Citizen from outside the agency finds:
-Many officers feel under pressure to approve new drugs.
-They receive inappropriate phone calls from drug companies.
-FDA senior officials intervene on a company’s behalf in the drug approval process.

The second survey of more than 130 officers conducted within the FDA finds:
-People reviewing drugs report feeling pressure to “favor the desires of sponsors over
science and the public health.”
-One-third surveyed, report they do not feel comfortable expressing their differing
scientific opinion.
-The portrayal of IBS as a severe, widespread disease is strongly backed by one of the leading patient advocacy groups, the International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders. Its president, Nancy Norton, spoke at all three FDA advisory meetings and as the transcripts show she never reveals that her foundation receives significant amounts of money from pharmaceutical companies, including GS K.


When the Frasier sitcom star Kelsey Grammer and his wife appeared on shows like The
Today Show, raising the profile of the syndrome, it was implied on behalf of Norton’s foundation, however, GS K funded the celebrity campaign. The involvement of the
Frasier star was organized with the help of celebrity-broker Amy Doner Schachtel, a
former drug company public relations expert in connecting high-profile celebrities with
big-name drug companies.

She states, “Just one segment on a national talk show, or one print article in a major
newspaper can tremendously impact patients’ decisions to seek treatment.” She helps
find celebrities to raise awareness about irritable bowel syndrome, depression and
social anxiety disorder. She worked with West Wing actor Rob Lowe, country singer songwriter Naomi Judd, and television star Cybill Shepherd to raise awareness about
menopause on behalf of an Australian company. “People look up to celebrities,” she says,
“because they trust them.”

Celebrities are central figures in drug company campaigns.

-Celebrities are paid anything from $20,000 to $2 million.
-Celebrities being paid by drug companies are under no clear regulatory requirements
to disclose accurate information about the nature of the conditions or the therapy
they are promoting.
-There are no legal requirements for celebrities, or for the media outlets in which they
appear, to disclose their connection with the drug manufacturer.

Sociologist Susan Bell has traced the medicalization of menopause back to the 1930s,
when a small group of elite medical specialists started to define a woman’s change of life
as a medical problem and label it as a deficiency disease. The same group of physicians was researching a new drug called DES , one of the early synthetic forms of the female hormone estrogen. Just as modern long-term hormone replacement therapy (HR T) is now known as toxic and harmful, the 1930s drug DES was ultimately found to be a dangerous carcinogen linked to birth defects in the daughters of some of those who took it.
In the mid-1960s, New York gynecologist Dr. Robert Wilson published the landmark
work Feminine Forever, the book that helped sell to generations of women the idea that
they could treat their disease of deficiency with hormone replacement. Excerpts were
published in Look and Vogue and it sold one hundred thousand copies in a matter of
months. His celebrity book tours and his scientific work testing estrogen were partially
sponsored by the drug company that manufactured the hormones, Ayerst Laboratories,
which ultimately became Wyeth.

In 2000, celebrity Lauren Hutton appears on the cover of Parade along with the headline,
“Live Longer, Better, Wiser: This year’s indispensable guide for every one of us.” She also
appears in the magazine’s main article, and is featured as the centerpiece of a Wyeth
advertisement in the same issue, talking about the consequences of estrogen loss at
menopause.

In 2002, Lesa Henry, the public relations chief at the drug company Wyeth, and the
woman helping to market HR T, picks up an advertising industry award for her work
using celebrities to promote drugs. She is named one of the top twenty-five marketers
of the year just as scientists discover long-term use of hormone replacement therapy is doing women more harm than good. She is one of the first people to recognize the value of celebrities for educating consumers about health conditions, and the drugs that go with them.

The Wyeth advertisement detailed a listof what may lie ahead for women after menopause:

-Alzheimer’s disease
-Heart attacks
-Colon cancer
-Cataracts
-Tooth loss
-Night sweats
-Vaginal dryness
-Bone fractures

In mid-July 2000, the Australasian Menopause Society
developed a free information booklet for patients.
Newspapers ran advertisements encouraging women to
attend seminars with medical experts talking about the
consequences of estrogen loss, and what to do about it at
towns and cities across the country. The U.S. based Wyeth
was funding the Australian campaign, and it was part of the
company’s global marketing effort to boost sales of HR T.
At least one of the key images in the patient information
booklet was lifted directly from the Wyeth ads running
at the time in the United States. The booklet states that
observational studies suggest the drugs reduce the risk of
heart disease. It does not reveal that one of the first topquality
randomized controlled trials, the HERS trial,
suggests the drugs have no such benefit and that there is
proven risk of blood clots associated with the use of these
drugs. The HERS trial results had by then been known for
two years.

Hormone replacement therapy proves to cause some of the health problems it is supposed to prevent such as:

-Alzheimer’s disease
-Heart attacks
-Stokes
-Blood clots
-Breast & endometrial cancer

The pharmaceutical industry and the medicalprofession build a foundation of a lifelong relationship.

-Physicians are strongly encouraged and sometimes
formally required to attend continuing medical
education, where half the funding of this billion-dollar
enterprise is provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

-Under a voluntary code created by the pharmaceutical
industry, it is acceptable for a drug company to fly three
hundred independent doctors to a golf resort, pay them
to attend, educate them about the company’s latest drug,
and then train them to become part of the company’s
stable of paid speakers.

-A global survey from Britain estimates that two-thirds of
all patient advocacy groups and health charities rely on
funding from drug companies or device manufacturers.

-An estimated 60 percent of biomedical research and
development in the U.S. is mainly funded from drug
companies.

-The Food and Drug Administration receives more than
half of its funding from the drug companies whose
products it is assessing.

-Research evidence is discussed and disseminated at
more than three hundred thousand scientific meetings,
events and conferences sponsored by the pharmaceutical
industry every year.

-Dr. Bryan Brewer, a senior official at the publicly funded
National Institutes of Health (NIH ), one of the biggest
biomedical research houses in the world, delivers a
presentation at an American Heart Association seminar,
sponsored by AstraZeneca describing Crestor, as safe
and effective. He has received two hundred thousand
dollars from outside private interests including eight
other drug companies.

-In 2004, drug companies paid around two thousand
dollars for each ten-foot by ten-foot square space
at the annual congress of the American Psychiatric
Association. They also sponsored over fifty scientific
sessions throughout the week-long congress. One of the
congress’s key sponsors is the maker of the world’s topselling
antidepressant drug, Zoloft.

-In the mid-1990s, at the international menopause congress held in Sydney, Wyeth
funded almost half of the scientific sessions. To help the international delegates
understand the latest science about menopause they were also offered social
engagements, including trips to the Sydney Opera House and harbor cruises. Postcongress
tours explored the tropical rainforest, the Great Barrier Reef, and Uluru.

It keeps going on like this.

 

[MIway]

And people say there isnt a master plan.

500 billion...i didnt realize it was that high...shit, id think i ruled the world too

 

[Full Of Peace]

It is a very good medicine to substitute for other drugs, I have used it myself to get rid of the physical dependencies of SSRI's and opiates. Someone who has serious mental dependencies for drugs might be trading one habit for another, but it really is a less harmful substance than allot of things, if used correctly.

 

[vapedg13]

shhhhhh be quiet...dont let big pharma know...they might try to monopolize & legalize

 

[Stoner4Life]

I used it in gaining my sobriety from freebase back in the '80s & I use it in place of the prescribed opiates for my tragic back condition.......

 

[mr.brunch]

weed is just so good for so many.
i have numerous friends who once had athsma but have not since they smoke weed.
i have 2 friends with epilepsy.... who do not have siezures as long as they smoke some each day.
my uncle and sister have bad sciatica problems , which is only held under control with smoking weed.
same for my knee problems... weed keeps down swelling, relaxes muscles and eases pain.
fuck the pharma, grow your own meds.

 

[Fly by Night]

I like a little of everything

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

weed is just so good for so many.
i have numerous friends who once had athsma but have not since they smoke weed.
i have 2 friends with epilepsy.... who do not have siezures as long as they smoke some each day.
my uncle and sister have bad sciatica problems , which is only held under control with smoking weed.
same for my knee problems... weed keeps down swelling, relaxes muscles and eases pain.
fuck the pharma, grow your own meds.

you should make tincture for your knee pain too.
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=140269

 

[Hank Hemp]

I more cannabis I do the less opiates I need for my poor back. Then I'm not as dependent on them. Hate opiates but they work. Right now I'm out of reefer so I eat more pills. When I'm out of opiates I get "sick", just had to wean myself off them to see how bad my back really is and it's bad. Never have had to wean myself off of the weed have I.

 

[highonmt]

Yep I've worked in big pharma as a career and there are good and bad sides to everything. Many of the drugs that have been developed are indeed beneficial to certain patient groups and have increased our functional lifespans. Well, that said the aggressive marketing of drugs and new disease as well as the rubber stamp approval process that seems to be the modern norm is dangerous and will come back to bite us. I always liked to think that all the good caring people that I worked with and who actually cared about patient health and safety would rise to the to top. The reality was the scum rises as always. The upper management of the multinational corp I worked for were back stabbing, whore mongering, money crazed thieving bastards to the number, it's really like pirates running the navy. At one point I remember a really nice TRI compound we worked on for years to the tune of 75 million dollars; it was safe, effective, with very few known side effects, corporate canned it because it "did not fit the corporate business strategy" Instead we were forced to work on tacitly unsafe osteoporosis drugs because they were more marketable. I quit soon after and went back to riding horses in the mountains.... I now take a few necessary drugs for my condition and smoke....everyday. I have one of the most painful medical conditions know as a result of drugs I was prescribed and I have never taken a synthetic or opioid to treat it. If you look back at medical texts from the 1920's and 30's you will immediately realize that doctors of the era would have been largely useless without cannabis...so without cannabis what are they today?
HM

 

[Luv a Grow]

I was a long term hard drug user for more than 20 years, been clean just over 8 years and it's cannabis and Alcoholics Anonymous that saved me!

Cannabis saves lives!

Thanks for this thread, any NA or AA members here?

 

[trichrider]

only till my higher power indicated an unnecessary indication for continued exposure.

keep your eye on the ball.

cannabis helped me rediscover myself....the one i have to live with...and that higher power which i must also live with. we came to an agreement, i indulge in cannabis and leave the rest to morph into what i'm blessed to call life.

healing takes some doing.

 

[devilgoob]

I noticed that ALL tokers 35 and will not touch their alcohol, pills or meth. They've all gone through something like pain med addiction or have had real addictions. I used to support marijuana with that claim, but now the claim is truth and the truth is that its a stable drug that satisfies without being an addictive life-ruiner.