Why I'm Not Convinced Big Pharma Is Behind Pot Prohibition (But That's Not to Say They Aren't Looking to Cash in on Medical Marijuana)

The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuana research and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this point, few Americans disagree. As for the question of "why" federal officials maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that's another story.

This fact was evident in the varied responses I received following my most recent Huffington Post essay, "What Your Government Knows About Cannabis And Cancer -- And Isn't Telling You." Several readers wrote me asserting that the Feds' seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot -- and the use of cannabis by adults in general -- is because neither the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry can patent it or profit from it. A related, yet equally common hypothesis argues: Big Pharma lobbies the federal government to keep pot illegal because it won't be able to compete with patients growing their own medicine.

They're appealing theories, yet I've found neither to be accurate nor persuasive. Here's why.

Mass Marketing Medical Pot

First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for -- and has already received -- multiple patents for the medical properties of pot. (The US government has too, but that's a different story all together.) These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the National Institutes of Health paper, "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004."

In other words, at the same time the American Medical Association and federal lawmakers are proclaiming that pot has no established medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.

Story continues below

advertisement

Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)

Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what's good for them.

First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration -- a process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit. Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health Products Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom. (Sativex's parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana -- culminating in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration that today's pot is now of "lethal quality." (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to five years in jail.)

In such an environment is it any wonder that British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex? Conversely, Canadian health regulators -- who take a much more liberal view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription drug.

Targeting the Consumer

Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The real hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here again, a culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic cannabis is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based medicines than a population still stuck in the grip of "Reefer Madness." (For example, Marinol, despite having been approved by the FDA in 1986, was rescheduled so that doctors might prescribe it more liberally in 1999 -- three years after California and other states began approving medical marijuana use legislation. Coincidence? I doubt it.)

Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the use of medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will -- including many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is legal or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad appeal.

That said, many argue that the legal availability of pot would encourage patients to use fewer pharmaceuticals overall and significantly undercut Big Pharma's profits. To a minor degree this may be a possibility, though likely not to an extent that adversely impacts the industry's bottom line. Certainly most individuals in the Netherlands, Canada, and in California -- three regions where medical pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market -- use prescription drugs, not cannabis, for their ailments. Further, despite the availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of choice.

Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever warrant or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief from natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector continues to move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of total pot prohibition.

Needless to say, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to legalize medical cannabis, it's unlikely that anyone -- most especially the pharmaceutical industry -- would be turning their attention toward the development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.

If Not Big Pharma, Then Who?

So, if Big Pharma isn't a significant player in the ongoing prohibition of the personal use of cannabis, then who is responsible? Based on my experience, the answer is obvious. First and most importantly, there's federal government -- as represented not only by the lawmakers who continue to vote in favor of America's Draconian drug policies, but also the numerous acronymn ladened bureaucracies (such as the ONDCP, NIDA, etc.) who actively lobby against any change in direction.

The second most powerful player in maintaining pot prohibition? That's easy: law enforcement, as represented by bigwigs like the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the California Narcotics Officers Association, all the way down the line to small-town police forces -- all of whom consistently finance efforts to derail any relaxation of federal, state, or local marijuana policies.

The third and final primary player responsible for maintaining modern-day pot prohibition? Unfortunately, that would be us, the general public -- a majority of whom have repeatedly voiced disapproval for legalizing the use personal use of pot by adults in both national polls and on statewide ballot initiatives, most recently in Colorado and in Nevada in 2006. (By contrast, more than half of Americans do support -- and have consistently voted for -- legislation in support of the qualified medical use of cannabis by authorized patients.)

In short, until there is a significant sea-change in the attitudes and actions of the Feds, cops, and the general public, expect prohibition -- particularly the broader prohibition on the recreational use of cannabis -- to continue.

Comments

[BenHansen]

Check out the Eli Lilly Cannabis Tincture and Parke Davis Cannabis Extract at the Institute for Nearly Genuine Research online gallery of modern and vintage psychiatric drug advertising: www.bonkersinstitute.org

[AZWolfster]

Oh, this is an easy one.

Want to know exactly why Big Pharma wants to keep pot illegal while patenting their own pot-based drugs? Wander over to the FDA website and check out what is quietly going on at docket #FDA-2007-P-0410-0002. A drug company, Medicure Pharma Inc, has filed a citizen's petition (oh, the irony). Their petition requests a ban on any marketing of pyridoxal 5'-phosphate, which is better known by its common name - vitamin B6. Vitamin B6 is known to be quite safe, and is necessary for human bodies and especially the nervous system. My own oncologist advised me to take B6 for chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, an extremely painful condition that it has indeed, thankfully, muted.

The company and the FDA do not pretend this petition has anything to do with public safety. They know B6 is safe and effective. But Medicure Pharma, Inc is developing a drug containing a synthetic form of pyridoxal 5'-phosphate, and plain ol' vitamin B6 would cut into its profit margin. What better way to eliminate the competition than by outlawing it? And guess what else? If they win, it will not have been the first time Big Pharma has gotten something safe and effective outlawed so they could force their synthetic, more dangerous, less effective version literally down people's throats, and rake in the dough.

Sorry, Mr. Armentano, but your conclusion is naive. Big Pharma and the FDA are even more devious than you ever suspected.

[jsknow]

It's time to remove all the politicians that promote prohibition. How many more lives have to be needlessly devastated or lost? Prohibited drugs are way easier for kids to get than regulated drugs! Prohibition never works it just causes crime and violence. The year alcohol prohibition was repealed violent crime fell by 65 percent.

On March 22, 1972: The Richard Nixon-appointed, 13-member National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended the decriminalization of marijuana, concluding, "[Marijuana's] relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."

The USA spends $69 billion a year on the drug war, builds 900 new prison beds and hires 150 more correction officers every two weeks, arrests someone on a drug charge every 17 seconds, jails more people than any nation and has killed over 100,000 citizens in the drug war. The World Health Organization documents the failure of U.S. drug policies.

Take Action, Join the email list, Watch the videos:
Internet Explorer: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/home
Other Browsers: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/index.html

[blaqntelligence]

I don't understand the hooplah over this subject.
I equate it to agribusiness attempting to stop me from growing beans and tomatoes in my backyard garden.
If it grows in the ground, who can stop someone from growing it?

[larry278]

The DEA can stop you, jail, fine & ruin you. The list of agencies who will also stop you from growing grass is endless. Since there are rewards for turning in those who grow grass, your neighbors, friends & complete strangers can be depended upon to rat on you. Note I call that delightful herb grass; I think calling it pot is crude, inaccurate & a favorite term of the late Harry Anslinger. Google Harry's name if you don't know who he was. Scruples stop me from maligning the dead. Besides Harry Anslinger has been called everything save a child of God.

[gramos]

At least if Big Pharma start selling marijuana, all users can start growing and dealers will still be around to compete with big pharama. Nobody can create a viagra in their home, or an ambien or lipitor, but at least we all know how to grow a plant.

[likeicare]

Big Pharma wants marijuana to remain illegal . . . as long as they get sole distributorship of it.

Then, they can control the supply and charge whatever they want . . . just like Big Oil does for their products.

It's a nice scam. And it works every time.

[beachbob]

Let's not forget how marijuana became illegal in the first place. Sure, it was the victim of the same control-freak mentality of alcohol prohibition, but there is more to the story:

Durng WWI, the Southwest US was drastically short of agricultural workers because of the draft (and volunteers). So they began "importing" Mexican workers. When the war ended, the veterans wanted their jobs back. Because smoking marijuana was a very common cultural habit among the Mexicans, making it illegal made it so much easier to deport them.

The "Reefer Madness" and Prohibition manias provided "cover" for this racist policy.

But what's really going on now is that we're still fighting the cultural wars of the 1960s. Marijuana use is a symbol of what the right wing is afraid of -- personal freedom of thought -- so it must remain illegal, or who knows, people might think for themselves in other aspects, such as a woman's right to choose or whether we go to war...