Pharmaceutical Giants Caught Supplying Cartels With Tons of Bulk Ingredients to Produce Meth

The Free Thought Project, verified by other sources ^ | March 11, 2016 | John Vibes

[LTC.Ret]

Quote the article: "Prosecutors in Belgium have recently announced that executives with pharmaceutical companies based in the country will be charged with knowingly providing drug cartels with prescription drugs that were used to manufacture methamphetamine. . . . accused of providing the Mexican drug kingpin Ezio Figueroa Vazquez with several tons of ephedrine . . . seven executives who were charged with crimes . . . company made two shipments of two million pills containing pseudoephedrine in 2006 . . . big pharma drug Adderall is nearly identical to crystal meth . . .the only place to get massive quantities of a substance like ephedrine would be a pharmaceutical company . . . they are making millions of dollars on the deal."

[Rockingham]

That the source is a dated Australian Department of Health web page that does not advocate your position. How about primary medical evidence from peer-reviewed medical articles and studies? Moreover, comorbidity refers to a patient having a combination of illnesses. As to alcohol abuse and schizophrenia, the term comorbidity does not provide an inference that alcohol causes or directly worsens schizophrenia. At most, it means that alcohol abuse makes the life of a schizophrenia patient harder and treatment more difficult.

[NobleFree]

That the source is a dated

It's from 2007 - "dated" only if there's reason to suppose that more recent evidence weighs against the conclusion that alcohol use may trigger psychosis in people who are vulnerable to developing schizophrenia. Can you offer any reason to so suppose?

Australian Department of Health web page

That was clear from the URL so not omitted.

that does not advocate your position.

I don't know what this claim of yours has to do with allegedly omitted context. Are you saying something else from that source says alcohol is not harmful to mental health?

comorbidity

is not mentioned on the page in question.

alcohol is more addictive than marijuana, more violence-increasing, and the only one of the two that can lead to fatal overdose.

I notice you've declined several opportunities to address these points. Why is that?

[Rockingham]

The issue is marijuana legalization, not alcohol legalization.

[Rockingham]

My research in PubMed uncovered a study in Finland reported in 2013 that found that for patients hospitalized with substance-induced psychosis, over the next eight years, 46 per cent of those whose psychosis was induced by cannabis became schizophrenic, while such a conversion occurred in only 5 per cent of those whose psychosis was induced by alcohol and 30 per cent of those whose psychosis was induced by amphetamines.

Or, in plain terms, almost half of those who were hospitalized for cannabis induced psychosis became schizophrenic, which was worse than the rate for amphetamine psychosis. Alcohol psychosis converted to schizophrenia only 5 per cent of the time.

J Clin Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;74(1):e94-9. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12m07822.

Substance-induced psychoses converting into schizophrenia: a register-based study of 18,478 Finnish inpatient cases.

AUTHORS: Niemi-Pynttäri JA1, Sund R, Putkonen H, Vorma H, Wahlbeck K, Pirkola SP.

BACKGROUND: Despite the clinical importance of substance-induced psychosis (SIP), few studies have examined the course of this condition after its acute manifestation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the rate of SIP conversion to a schizophrenia spectrum disorder and the length of follow-up needed to catch the majority of these patients whose diagnoses change. In addition to the conversion rate and pattern, we wanted to look for possible related factors.

METHOD: Using the nationwide Finnish Hospital Discharge Register, we followed all patients (N = 18,478) since their first inpatient hospital admission with a diagnosis of SIP (codes 2921 and 2928 in DSM-III-R and codes F10-F19 in ICD-10 with a third digit of 4, 5, or 7) between January 1987 and December 2003 in Finland. Patients (mean age = 43.7 years, standard deviation = 13.5 years) were followed until first occurrence of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, death, or the end of December 2003, whichever took place first. Conversions of discharge diagnoses into schizophrenia spectrum disorders (codes 2951-2959 and 2971 in DSM-III-R and codes F20, F22, and F23 in ICD-10) were recorded at follow-up.

RESULTS: Eight-year cumulative risk to receive a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was 46% (95% CI, 35%-57%) for persons with a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis and 30% (95% CI, 14%-46%) for those with an amphetamine-induced psychosis. Although alcohol-induced psychosis was the most common type of SIP, 8-year cumulative risk for subsequent schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis was only 5.0% (95% CI, 4.6%-5.5%). No differences were detected with regard to gender, except for amphetamine-induced psychosis, which converted into a schizophrenia spectrum disorder significantly more often in men (P = .04). The majority of conversions to a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis occurred during the first 3 years following the index treatment period, especially for cannabis-induced psychosis.

CONCLUSION: Substance-induced psychotic disorders predict schizophrenia spectrum disorders to a greater extent than previously thought. The intensity of clinical attention focused on substance-induced psychotic disorders should be increased.

[NobleFree]

alcohol is more addictive than marijuana, more violence-increasing, and the only one of the two that can lead to fatal overdose.

I notice you've declined several opportunities to address these points. Why is that?

The issue is marijuana legalization, not alcohol legalization.

The issue is by what criteria a substance's legal status should be decided. You have claimed (post #107) that a substance should be illegal if it leads to significant harms and risks ... from which it follows that alcohol - which is more addictive than marijuana, more violence-increasing, and the only one of the two that can lead to fatal overdose - should be no less stringently legally restricted than marijuana.

[NobleFree]

Substance-induced psychotic disorders predict schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Notice the researchers said "predict" not "cause."

[Rockingham]

Again, the criteria is a society’s experience and settled judgment. In the developed world, that means that alcohol is mostly permitted while marijuana is mostly illegal.

[NobleFree]

Again, much of mankind has had little experience with marijuana; it was criminalized in this country after generations of legality, amid a wave of demagogery about "crazy Mexicans" and white-woman seducing Negro jazz musicians.

[Rockingham]

The distinction is immaterial here because a reliable prediction of harm is sufficient as a basis for policy decisions. Indeed, the use of cannabis has traditionally been illegal because it had a reputation for often leading to mental disorders — a concern now validated by numerous medical studies.

[NobleFree]

The distinction is immaterial here because a reliable prediction of harm is sufficient as a basis for policy decisions.

Not if the strength of the prediction rests on a common cause for both the preceding and the following states of affairs - which the researchers left wide open as a possible explanation for the predictive power.

And note that while marijuana use has risen over decades there has been no corresponding increase in overall levels of schizophrenia.

[Rockingham]

You seem to believe that because of ludicrous stereotypes in the past, until someone has tried marijuana and decided that it is bad, they cannot correctly favor keeping it illegal. Yet, from the 1970s onward, most American adults got to know about marijuana from using it or having friends or family who used it. Enough have had a bad experience with marijuana that it has remained illegal. So also has there been an accumulation of medical research over the last several decades that increasingly validates opposition to marijuana legalization.

[Rockingham]

The researchers in the 2013 study in Finland found that an episode of hospitalization for psychosis induced by substance abuse was predictive of a later diagnosis of schizophrenia. The relationship was highest for marijuana -- almost a 50 per cent risk of schizophrenia -- but less so for amphetamines and only 5 per cent for alcohol.

For the causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, I refer you again to the studies I cited in post 102. The first study in 2013 found that the risk of both psychosis and SPD [schizotypal personality disorder] increases with greater use of cannabis, in a dose-dependent manner. Compared to non-users, greater cannabis use showed significantly elevated risk of having been diagnosed with SPIE [self-reported history of psychotic illness or episode] and elevated risk of all SPD symptoms, even after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.

The second study, in 2014, was reported by the authors as finding that in addition to previous findings of an increased risk of schizophrenia in subjects with history of cannabis use, schizophrenia patients with a history of cannabis use also have a poorer prognosis, as indicated by longer hospital episodes and more readmissions. Thus, it is of public health as well as clinical importance that, as well as increasing risk of schizophrenia, cannabis may also lead to an illness that is more severe than in non-users of this drug.

Those findings and other pertinent research make for a strong scientific case against the legalization of marijuana.

[NobleFree]

Again, the criteria is a society’s experience and settled judgment. In the developed world, that means that alcohol is mostly permitted while marijuana is mostly illegal.

Again, much of mankind has had little experience with marijuana; it was criminalized in this country after generations of legality, amid a wave of demagogery about "crazy Mexicans" and white-woman seducing Negro jazz musicians.

You seem to believe that because of ludicrous stereotypes in the past, until someone has tried marijuana and decided that it is bad, they cannot correctly favor keeping it illegal.

As usual, you mischaracterize my argument. I believe that because much of society has had little experience with marijuana - as illustrated by the ludicrous stereotypes of the past - "society’s experience and settled judgment" is a weak argument for continued illegality.

Yet, from the 1970s onward, most American adults got to know about marijuana from using it or having friends or family who used it. Enough have had a bad experience with marijuana that it has remained illegal.

Actually, here's what's been going on from the 1970s onward, as most American adults got to know about marijuana from using it or having friends or family who used it:

So also has there been an accumulation of medical research over the last several decades that increasingly validates opposition to marijuana legalization.

No, it validates accurate labeling and appropriate regulation, as is done with many legal though potentially hazardous products - including alcohol, which is more addictive than marijuana, more violence-increasing, and the only one of the two that can lead to fatal overdose.

[Rockingham]

We have gone at this long enough to have reached three underlying issues on which we are at odds.

The first issue is the value of abstract propositions against what I refer to as "society’s experience and settled judgment," especially as reflected in laws and institutions. In particular, you see as compelling the abstract proposition that alcohol and marijuana merit equal treatment in law. I accept no such thing and defer to the general legal prohibition of marijuana as correct unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.

The second issue is the weight of majority opinion versus settled and long-established laws. You see a simple majority opinion in favor of marijuana legalization as authoritative. I do not. Indeed, majority opinion is fickle and changeable, with full marijuana legalization tending to be defeated in legislatures and as referenda propositions. On consideration, the public rejects the case for marijuana legalization.

The third issue is the substantial harm that marijuana does to so many of its users, especially in its effect of triggering and promoting schizophrenia. To me, this practical consideration is compelling, being strongly supported by medical evidence and practical experience. You assert, dogmatically, that because alcohol is also awful but legal, so also should marijuana be legal. I reject that proposition.

And there matters stand, in apparent impasse. I have to ask: what evidence or point of argument might convince you to oppose marijuana legalization?

[NobleFree]

The first issue is the value of abstract propositions against what I refer to as "society’s experience and settled judgment," especially as reflected in laws and institutions. In particular, you see as compelling the abstract proposition that alcohol and marijuana merit equal treatment in law. I accept no such thing and defer to the general legal prohibition of marijuana as correct unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.

My position that laws on mind altering substances should consistently reflect the reality of those substances, is no more "abstract" than your deference to an "experience and settled judgment" that you admit includes past ludicrous stereotypes.

You see a simple majority opinion in favor of marijuana legalization as authoritative.

No, that's just the latest of your many mischaracterizations of my argument. I raised the point about public opinion simply in order to show that YOUR criterion of what "most American adults from the 1970s onward got to know about marijuana from using it or having friends or family who used it" favors MY position. That's what happens when you make up your "principles" as you go along: you wind up rebutting your own position.

You assert, dogmatically, that because alcohol is also awful but legal, so also should marijuana be legal.

Yet another mischaracterization from you. My position is the common-sense one that comparably hazardous products merit comparable legal restrictions; if you were taking the position (as a few on FR have) that alcohol should also be illegal, we'd have agreed on the aforementioned common sense ... but you reject common sense here.

I have to ask: what evidence or point of argument might convince you to oppose marijuana legalization?

If somehow it was shown that marijuana use in and of itself regularly posed a clear and present danger to people other than the user - against all the evidence to date that shows no such thing - then I would find the case for legalization very much weaker. Although criminalization's providing substantial means and motive for criminal violence would remain a point against it.

[NobleFree]

I forgot to ask: how does a federal prohibition that's only a few years older than the New Deal, and Wickard v. Filburn's evisceration of limits on federal power, qualify as a "settled judgment"? Are the New Deal and Wickard v. Filburn also "settled judgments" to which you would have us defer?

[Rockingham]

To state the obvious, alcohol and marijuana are different substances with different effects and risks. Most people these days have known both alcoholics and stoners. They recognize them as unreliable and sometimes dangerous, but also as reflecting different pathologies.

There is substantial and growing medical evidence that, for teens and those who are individually susceptible, marijuana use carries a significant risk of long-term harm in the form of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. As a matter of policy, it may reasonably be surmised that, in the aggregate, the greater marijuana use that would follow general legalization would lead to a greater burden of marijuana abuse and mental illness.

As the authors of a recent study in JAMA Psychiatry stated, “while some can use cannabis without harm, potential consequences include impaired functioning, vehicle crashes, emergency department visits, psychiatric symptoms, and addiction.” The authors concluded that:

Medical marijuana laws appear to have contributed to increased prevalence of illicit cannabis use and cannabis use disorders. State-specific policy changes may also have played a role. While medical marijuana may help some, cannabis-related health consequences associated with changes in state marijuana laws should receive consideration by health care professionals and the public.

Do you contend that the experts who wrote that and the editors who published it are in thrall to ludicrous stereotypes about marijuana? Despite the energetic efforts of marijuana advocates, the simple fact remains that marijuana has well-proven dangers that reasonably support keeping it generally illegal as a recreational drug.

[NobleFree]

To state the obvious, alcohol and marijuana are different substances with different effects and risks.

That's what I've said several times with no response from you: alcohol is more addictive than marijuana, more violence-increasing, and the only one of the two that can lead to fatal overdose.

it may reasonably be surmised that, in the aggregate, the greater marijuana use that would follow general legalization would lead to a greater burden of marijuana abuse and mental illness.

Facts trump surmises: as I said, while marijuana use has risen over decades there has been no corresponding increase in overall levels of schizophrenia.

marijuana has well-proven dangers

As does alcohol - greater on a number of fronts.

[Rockingham]

So what if alcohol is bad from a public health perspective? Logically, that does not offer a reason for having available another legal intoxicant to abuse. Indeed, your line of argument would justify making virtually all intoxicants legal because alcohol is legal.

Not enough is known about the epidemiology of schizophrenia to provide evidence for the argument that you suggest. Yet the proven effect of marijuana in causing and triggering schizophrenia and prompting relapses in schizophrenics makes for a sound reason for keeping it illegal.

[NobleFree]

So what if alcohol is bad from a public health perspective?

So this: by the logic you offer regarding marijuana, you should support making alcohol illegal as well - yes you strenuously refuse to do so, suggesting that the "principles" you apply to marijuana policy are merely rationalizations chosen to fit your predetermined conclusion.