Healthcare & rationing

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:49 pm

Also, I dont see what the advantage is of smoking a joint versus swollowing a prescription drug, if both contain the same agent, or an agent that works the same way.

The joint is almost certainly safer. Marijuana has an exceptional toxicity ratio: 40,000 to 1.

The only difference I see is that smoking a joint every day will most likely cause lung cancer after a few decades of doing so.

Wrong.

in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Actually, marijuana not only doesn't cause lung cancer, in some studies it is actually negatively correlated with it. That's right: it may help prevent lung cancer.

There are a variety of known physical reasons why tobacco does and marijuana does not cause cancer.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:59 pm

I've already pointed out we do more and better diagnostics than Europe as well.

You have said that, yes but I dont believe you. I want to see proof for that.

We do all kinds of medical R&D that you guys never pay for.

We do a lot too. Non US firms that do medical research (non biotech) are Philips, Siemens, AVL (now La Roche), Toshiba, me and there are many others. In fact, when it comes to non biotech, the US most definitely does not have 80% of the research and development. Not by a longshot.

The joint is almost certainly safer.

Than a pill? Reference please.
Burning organic materials will ALWAYS set free carcinogens. Some materials more, some less. Most joints are not smoked pure, but are stretched with tabacco, btw.

The link is not trustworthy. A website called drugpolicy.org is no worthy reference for me.

That's right: it may help prevent lung cancer.

That would be sensational. You have found a miracle cure for cancer. The nobel price is waiting!

I have posted links to several studies that say that marijuana is a health risk. I have seen long term users myself. Duuuuude, dooont talk sooo faaaast. Sloooow dooown maaaan.
ggggggg.
Anyway...

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:17 pm

Skipjack wrote:
I've already pointed out we do more and better diagnostics than Europe as well.
You have said that, yes but I dont believe you. I want to see proof for that.
I've already given you proof. We have around 5 times as many MRIs as Europe, and we have better cancer survival rates.

We do a lot too. Non US firms that do medical research (non biotech) are Philips, Siemens, AVL (now La Roche), Toshiba, me and there are many others. In fact, when it comes to non biotech, the US most definitely does not have 80% of the research and development. Not by a longshot.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter where it was developed, YOU DON'T PAY FOR IT, WE DO. Your governments do monopsony purchasing for drugs and other medical goods. We have a free market, without which those companies could not profitably sell their innovations.

The joint is almost certainly safer.
Than a pill? Reference please.
Again, 40,000:1 toxicity ratio. Prescription drugs are generally closer to 10.

Most joints are not smoked pure, but are stretched with tabacco, btw.
Not in America. I've never seen anyone do that here, and I knew a lot of stoners in college.

The link is not trustworthy. A website called drugpolicy.org is no worthy reference for me.
Don't trust the link, trust the several cites to medical journals at the link.

That would be sensational. You have found a miracle cure for cancer. The

Hardly. The effect is considerably smaller than for, say, green tea. Also, prevention is not the same as cure. I thought you said you had some connection to medicine and a claim to non-stupidity.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:26 pm

People often get some strange ideas about things, sometimes due to gov't propaganda, and often find the truth surprising.

SAN DIEGO—People who smoke marijuana—even heavy, long-term marijuana users—do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to a study to be presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference on May 23rd.

Marijuana smoking also did not appear to increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus, the study found.

The findings were a surprise to the researchers. “We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use—more than 500-1,000 uses—would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana,” said the senior researcher, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles.
...
The heaviest smokers in the study had smoked more than 22,000 marijuana cigarettes, or joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 to 22,000 joints. Even these smokers did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. People who smoked more marijuana were not at any increased risk compared with those who smoked less marijuana or none at all.

Marijuana is actually considerably safer than cigarettes or alcohol.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:27 pm

Again, 40,000:1 toxicity ratio. Prescription drugs are generally closer to 10.

reference please

The effect is considerably smaller than for, say, green tea.

The green tea myth has been debunked a long time ago. Next!

The studies and papers listed on this page are outdated compared to the ones I listed. Why should I trust those more than mine?

Again the number of MRIs dont say anything, neither does the number of cancer survival rates. Good general medicine is preventive and does not just fix what is already broken. That includes education of the people about dangers. We have longer lifespan, maybe because of that. In any case we do. So we are even. I dont care whether YOU believe otherwise.

The US is an important market, but you cant seriously believe that our manufacturers of medical equipment only can survive because of you.
I have got news for you: I am one of them and the US market is just one market for us. We sell more in Japan and Europe than in the US, actually.
Sure, we are just one, but still...

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:30 pm

I will go and talk to the professor of the local experimental pathology. He is an expert on these things. I will get back to you about this tomorrow.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:33 pm

Again the number of MRIs dont say anything, neither does the number of cancer survival rates.

Oh for Christ's sake pay attention to what you're asking. You just asked why our health care costs more, I said one reason is we do more MRIs. The cancer survival rates indicate our care is better.

We have longer lifespan, maybe because of that.

You actually don't, if we look at comparable areas in the U.S.

The US is an important market, but you cant seriously believe that our manufacturers of medical equipment only can survive because of you

It depends on to what degree monopsony pricing doesn't allow companies to recoup R&D. For drugs, they definitely `wouldn't exist without our market.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:37 pm

The green tea myth has been debunked a long time ago. Next!

Myth, eh? News to the National Cancer Institute.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... ention/tea

In the laboratory, studies have shown that tea catechins act as powerful inhibitors of cancer growth in several ways: They scavenge oxidants before cell injuries occur, reduce the incidence and size of chemically induced tumors, and inhibit the growth of tumor cells. In studies of liver, skin, and stomach cancer, chemically induced tumors were shown to decrease in size in mice that were fed green and black tea

Two studies in China, where green tea is a mainstay of the diet, resulted in promising findings. One study involving over 18,000 men found that tea drinkers were about half as likely to develop stomach or esophageal cancer as men who drank little tea, even after adjusting for smoking and other health and diet factors

The evidence is a bit contradictory, but it's hardly a "myth."

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:42 pm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193338.htm

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/14 ... ts_cancer/

Among the more interesting pieces of news that came out while I was on vacation the first half of August was a new study in the journal Cancer Prevention Research, which found that marijuana smokers have a lower risk of head and neck cancers than people who don’t smoke marijuana.

You're learning a lot today!

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:46 pm

Quote:
Again, 40,000:1 toxicity ratio. Prescription drugs are generally closer to 10. reference please

You can Google a few dozen sources on this. They all agree it's very high. Here's the DEA:

http://www.fcda.org/judge.young.htm

8. At present it is estimated that cannabis's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 time as much cannabis as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approxi-mately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of cannabis within about 15 minutes to induce a lethal response

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:33 pm

How are illegal drugs cheaper than prescription drugs that are fully payed by the health insurance here and from what you are claiming are also payed by the health insurance in the US?

How is iron cheaper than gold?

Dude. Really. Give it a rest. You have become unhinged.

Oh. You mean cheaper to the consumer? Well there is the doctor's visit. For which you need to take time off from the job. Then the visit to the pharmacy. And of course there is the side effects question.

In America drug dealing is so competitive that drug dealers will often make deliveries. The movie "Clockers" was about that.

But no matter what - if you actually account for all the costs - marijuana is cheaper for the system. I'd like to bring it into the system. There would then be more money for heart transplants. And less money for criminals.

Not to worry. Legalization is coming.

Mexico has just decriminalized all drugs. America now has a front row seat.

And I hope your heart is in good shape. This one could kill you:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -tech.html

In a study of high tech industries, researchers found that "drug testing programs do not succeed in improving productivity. Surprisingly, companies adopting drug testing programs are found to exhibit lower levels of productivity than their counterparts that do not... Both pre-employment and random testing of workers are found to be associated with lower levels of productivity."

Does this mean that one of the reasons America is a high tech powerhouse is that the lifetime prevalence of drug use is near the highest in the world? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. But it sure is interesting. Excluding drug users from the high tech workforce lowers productivity.

Of course the Apple folks looked pretty much the same. The VW van sold for parts is a dead giveaway.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Oh geeez!
You should hear yourself talk. I have never read so much mixed shit on a single page as the stuff you guys are letting loose. Really, this is to much.
Well, I will call some experts tomorrow, if I find the time. Luckily I know some people that are researching this for a living. Then we will talk again, OK?
I am pretty sure that the chinese study has been proven wrong meanwhile and that green tea is by far not as healthy as people make it.
I cant remember anymore what exactly the issue was, I would have to look it up again. In any case it was more or less a good business while it lasted.

Sometimes I really wonder why I bother with you people. You guys are so brainwashed and/or so entitled to your own opinion, that you wont let anything count beyond that.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:06 pm

LD50 is about 100 times the maximum recommended dose for most pharma drugs:

http://drugdiscoverywizzards.blogspot.c ... ce-is.html

Some get down as low as 1.4 to 1.0 (chemotherapy drugs are in this range).

So compare 100 to 1 to 20,000 to 1. Water is not even as safe as marijuana.

People need from 1/4 to 1 gallon a day of water. Depending.

And yet get way above a 1 liter (quart) per hour rate for a few hours and you can die.

http://everything2.com/node/1923501

But not to worry. Death from excessive water drinking is rare. It happens most often during drug testing when people are trying to dilute their urine. In other words - the pot won't kill you but drug testing may.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:00 pm

Skipjack wrote:Oh geeez!
You should hear yourself talk. I have never read so much mixed shit on a single page as the stuff you guys are letting loose. Really, this is to much.
Well, I will call some experts tomorrow, if I find the time. Luckily I know some people that are researching this for a living. Then we will talk again, OK?
I am pretty sure that the chinese study has been proven wrong meanwhile and that green tea is by far not as healthy as people make it.
I cant remember anymore what exactly the issue was, I would have to look it up again. In any case it was more or less a good business while it lasted.

Sometimes I really wonder why I bother with you people. You guys are so brainwashed and/or so entitled to your own opinion, that you wont let anything count beyond that.

Dude. We got peer reviewed studies. But please. Call your priest and ask him what to think instead of judging the evidence for yourself.

I do take it as a positive sign that the evidence so shocked you that you have to seek expert advice. It is shocking that the people you once trusted for the truth have been lying to you. Then who can you trust? Yourself. Congratulations. You are now an American.

====

Funny thing is that I presented the same arguments to an American who held the same position you do and he was able to judge the evidence for himself. And he wasn't satisfied until he could. If people will actually follow the evidence they come to a very different view than they do from just absorbing cultural attitudes.

I wonder if that is a general trend? Do Europeans trust authority more than Americans? Do you become an American when you stop trusting authority? Interesting thought.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:01 pm

I have never read so much mixed shit on a single page as the stuff you guys are letting loose.

I sympathize. Education is often painful. Just try to take deep breaths.

Well, I will call some experts tomorrow, if I find the time.

Be sure and ask them about the peer-reviewd studies. You wouldn't want to commit the argument from authority fallacy.

I am pretty sure that the chinese study has been proven wrong meanwhile and that green tea is by far not as healthy as people make it.

There were actually two Chinese studies. There was also a European study that found some ungodly reduction in cardiac deaths, something like 50%.

Studies that did not find the same benefits generally included milk (which binds to catechins) or were of black teas or oolongs.

Here's a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tea