MacDoctor July 4, 2009

Why the Bong is Wrong

Predictably, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill was decisively exterminated before it even reached select committee. No surprises there, but good on Metiria Turei for taking the time to put the bill forward.

Readers of this blog may now be scratching their heads, because they know that the MacDoctor is not in favour of legalising cannabis. However, the MacDoctor acknowledges that there are a number of perfectly legitimate uses for cannabis both as a medicine and as a material. Cannabis is not quite the wonder drug that Peter Cresswell describes over at NotPC and Will De Cleene talks about at Gonzo Freakpower (But their posts are well worth a read anyway!), but the stuff does have a number of perfectly valid uses, particularly in relieving the symptoms of malaise and pain in cancer patients. Of course, there are a number of other drugs that do the same job, but cannabis has a fairly benign side-effect profile although its use in mental health patients is questionable. Danyl at the Dim-post suggests that the bill’s strange insistence on allowing mental health patients to “treat” themselves is what lead to its summary defeat. I have a different take on that, however.

There are two reasons why the medical cannabis bill was defeated so easily. One is political, the other, medical. The political reason is obvious, and here Russell Brown hits the nail on the head:

“It’s hard not to see MPs’ rejection of Metiria Turei’s medical cannabis bill as the result of a desperate desire to avoid talking about the issue, rather than a genuine exercise of conscience.”

Like smacking, euthanasia and abortion, cannabis use is one of those highly polarised subjects that politicians avoid like the plague. There is no gain here for a politician. Legalisation of medical usage of cannabis will be seen as “legalisation of cannabis”. The distinction between recreational use and medical use (a very real one in my mind) will be utterly lost in the rather vocal objections of a significant minority. This loss of distinction will make passage of this bill very unpopular. And the medical and pharmaceutical fraternity will be telling politicians soothingly that there are alternative drugs for each and every use of cannabis; so why open the can of worms? Just shut down the bill as fast as possible.

Which brings me to the medical reason, which is the real reason why the bong will always be wrong.

Cannabis is a herb.

Doctors don’t like herbs. The dosage is always imprecise. They are usually packaged by health food companies with all the attendant trendy baggage of the health food industry. We often don’t know what the active substances are, how they work or even whether they work. Drug companies don’t make them so the quality of the product is highly variable both between brands and even within the same batch. It all smacks of herbalism and possible quackery.

It makes us nervous.

Pharmacists don’t like herbs. The margins on them are lower and there are dozens of brands is each category. Worse, the required herb may be only available mixed with other herbs – and each one of those compounds may be different. There is no consistency in packaging and, worst of all, a herb like marijuana would have to be physically measured out in many instances. Very manpower intensive and error-prone.

Pharmaceutical companies don’t like herbs. And here we come to the underlying reason why something like cannabis would be so hard to medicalise. It is not patentable.

Pharmaceutical companies make their money from patentable drugs, so there is simply no money in herbs. This is precisely why a herb like Saw Palmetto, for which there is some evidence that it is useful in treating enlarged prostates, is simply not pursued. There is no funding to research it. Plenty is known about cannabis, but the bulk of the trials are small and non-standard and easily dismissed by politicians looking for an excuse not to debate the issue.

The drug companies will continue to extract stuff from cannabis, alter the molecule slightly and patent the result. Every now and again this new drug will turn out to be a winner and the drug company will make a large amount of money. It does not matter that the cancer victim could have felt some relief from baking some marijuana muffins or using a cannabis vaporiser, the drug companies will not be interested and will actively discourage interest from other parties. Including the medical bodies and the government.

So when our politicians dispose of Turei’s bill without a backward glance, remember that there is a great deal more going on than a simple political knee-jerk reaction. There is a great deal more weighing in against cannabis than a government.

Share

14 Comments

Leave A Reply
  • Good post, you forgot the tobacco and alcohol industry though…

    Deliberately. One can of worms at a time, please… :-)

  • “Pharmaceutical companies don’t like herbs. And here we come to the underlying reason why something like cannabis would be so hard to medicalise. It is not patentable.”

    I highly recommend Google patents – it’s so easier than USPTO site
    http://www.google.com/patents

    US Pat 11207700 covers “Compositions and methods for treating prostate disorders” using cannabis with some trace Se Zn and mushrooms.

    A quick search on “cannabis herb” reveals there are current patents and applications on the production of herbal extracts and mixtures from cannabis. The use of supercritical fluids and heat are two extraction techniques in recent patents.

    Yes, big pharma continues their “methyl, ethyl, butyl, futile” process of patenting cannabinoid receptor compounds, however that’s more anti-competitive strategy than lucrative commercialisation dreams.

    Their internal risk assessment teams would point to the huge potential liability if any cannabis extract was manufactured and marketed by a “deep pockets” company. Every dopehead would be lining up with their lawyer for compensation.

    By “not patentable”, I really mean not defensibly patentable. You can patent herbal preparations, but they are very hard to defend in court.

  • For standardisation of dosage issues, I recommend having a look at the Office of Medicinal Cannabis:

    http://www.cannabisbureau.nl/eng/

    Thanks, Will. I am, of course, talking about doctor’s perceptions rather than reality. ;-)

  • The bottom line is that the state has no right to control what people put into their bodies. Whose carcase is it: yours or the state’s? My arguments are here:
    http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/the-pointless-death-of-an-undercover-policeman/

    Off-topic, but this might interest you:
    http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/my-experience-of-swine-flu-precautions/
    .-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..My experience of swine flu precautions =-.

  • KP: The bottom line is that the state has no right to control what people put into their bodies.

    This would mean you support drunk driving and the unlimited use of P – despite the vast social cost of such a policy.

  • Fair point, MacDoctor. You’re spot on about the patenting issue too. It’s why Big Pharm spend lots of dollars on erection drugs instead of pesky non-profit areas like Dengue Fever and malaria.

  • I do support legalisation of drink-driving and all drugs. The “social cost” only arises under a socialist system, which spreads the cost of these behaviours at gunpoint (this is called taxation) and shields individuals from the consequences of their actions. Under a libertarian system each person would bear the full consequences of their actions and thus find out the true cost of them. This is called “a lesson in personal responsibility” and is consistent with the Bible and the laws of nature. Eg, if you run head first into a brick wall you get a head ache. Every child knows this, then grows up and expects the state to take away the headache at someone else’s expense, even though the headache is their own stupid fault.

    http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/drink-driving-should-be-legalised/

    http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/slices-of-life-from-auckland-hospital/
    .-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog .. =-.

  • KP: My problem with legalisation is that the social costs of these extend well beyond the taxpayer. What do you say to a family whose daughter has been bludgeoned to death by a “P” addict? Or to a family whose son has been run over and killed by a drunk driver.

    Somehow, a “lesson in personal responsibility” seems so inadequate.

  • What do you say to a family whose daughter has been bludgeoned to death by a “P” addict? Or to a family whose son has been run over and killed by a drunk driver.

    This is a red herring because the present system (of paternalistic and totalitarian drug control and drink-driving laws) does not prevent these things happening and rewards the felon with free food and accommodation.

    Under a libertarian system I would say “obtain redress from the felon”. Literally, make him pay for his crime (be that in cash, time, personal injury, whatever). You can also make a strong biblical case for the death penalty in these situations.
    .-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Vote “No” for freedom to parent =-.

  • KP: This is a red herring because the present system (of paternalistic and totalitarian drug control and drink-driving laws) does not prevent these things happening

    Not really, because the present system does reduce the incidence of these things, albeit inadequately. Unless you are prepared to use the death penalty for manslaughter while drink-driving, I can’t see how legalisation would do anything other than make the situation worse.

  • Legalisation is only half the story. The other half is reforming the legal system so that felons alone bear the consequences of their actions.

    Besides which, prevention of (supposed and real) crime as supported by you is contrary to the Bible. The Israelites were instructed to build a rail around their roof in order to avoid blood guilt*. If they didn’t build a rail and someone died as a result then the home owner bore blood guilt (which was the consequences of his actions). However, it was not a crime to have a house without a rail; there is no biblical penalty for failing to build a rail. God is saying “If you don’t build a rail and someone dies as a result you will carry blood guilt. It’s your choice, but I’m telling you that only a stupid plonker doesn’t build a rail”. The Bible is all about punishment of crime, not prevention of crime.

    Deut 22:8, cf Ex 22:33-34.

    *note that self-interest leads to altruism. Very capitalistic and very unsocialistic.
    .-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Vote “No” for freedom to parent =-.

  • KP: Besides which, prevention of (supposed and real) crime as supported by you is contrary to the Bible

    Your conclusion is based on what? A couple of verses in Deuteronomy? The main reason why scripture does not concern itself with the prevention of crime is not because prevention is somehow bad, but because God is far more concerned with each individual leading a right life. Scripture was never intended to be a law book as such, but a manual for right-living.

    In this sense the bible is all about the prevention of “crime” because it is all about the proper way of life. The bible is certainly not “all about punishment of crime”. Right living and it’s rewards are the central theme of the bible, not sin and it’s consequences.

    PS What Bible version are you using. I wasn’t aware that God ever used the term “stupid plonker”, though I would quite understand if He wished to use it to describe Saul or Samson… :-)

  • The verses I used are examples of a biblical pattern. The pattern is as I described: e.g., people were not punished for failing to build a rail, but they did carry blood guilt – the consequences of their actions – if they failed to build a rail and someone died as a result.

    Furthermore, Rom 8 says that the only legitimate actions of the state are rewarding good and punishing evil; nothing about prevention there.

    The totalitarian nanny state says “we will not allow you to do things that may harm others” (eg drink-driving laws). God says “you are not allowed to harm others, and if you do so you will wear the consequences/be punished”. There’s a huge difference.
    .-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Vote “No” for freedom to parent =-.

  • Further to my comment above, here’s a quote from Lugwig von Mises (emphasis added):

    The state is the apparatus of compulsion and coercion. This holds not only for the “night-watchman” state, but just as much for every other, and most of all for the socialist state. Everything that the state is capable of doing it does by compulsion and the application of force. To suppress conduct dangerous to the existence of the social order is the sum and substance of state activity; to this is added, in a socialist community, control over the means of production.

    That’s another way of saying “the state will not allow you to do things that may harm other people”, as I said above. This is unbiblical and invites evil done in the name of “good”.

    To read more go to http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp
    .-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Vote “No” for freedom to parent =-.

Comments Are Closed