Yeah... we wouldn't want pharmacies to dispense something that- *checks notes*- has multiple medical benifits.
Wouldn't a pharmacy dispensing this interfere with companies who entire purpose is to do this? I remember reading an article that stated a massive amount of issues with this exact situation.
Not everything with medical benefits can be found in a pharmacy. For example, gamma ray emitters have medical benefits.
Even if we only consider substances, there are plenty of beneficial drugs that are never found in pharmacies, like propofol.
So, is cannabis more like a gamma ray emitter or surgical anaesthetic, or more like a drug typically dispensed by pharmacies?
I was addressing the argument that things with medical benefits belong in pharmacies.
But since you ask: it is more like a drug taken most often for recreational purposes, many of which are also not found in pharmacies.
Does the pharmacy sell any drugs that can be used for recreational purposes?
They keep coricidin behind the counter. The one with pseudoephedrine in it
Fine, who would want Walgreens, Walmart and CVS to be where you get your weed? I would rather buy it at independent stores both for atmosphere and that large pharmacies are shitty companies in every way possible.
Because it's a prescription medication, just like any other. It's far more convenient to pick up prescription just like you do any other.
There will be far fewer dispensaries than pharmacies, so less choice, more driving, and worse hours.
Dispensaries vastly outnumber pharmacies in the towns I’ve lived in (Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico) and also have more convenient hours (Denver they’re 8 am - 10 pm). I also have doubts about the varieties they’d stock and the quality. Being prescribed cannabis in most states means you shop at regular stores and get a discount, or in non-rec states that you can go there at all - and they tend to have a tremendous variety. It’s not like being prescribed a pharmaceutical that comes in one brand and a generic pill like most prescriptions.
I’d also much rather talk to someone who understands cannabis and cannabinoids topics - RSO, CBD, edibles, dabbing and so forth - than a pharmacist. I would anticipate a pharmacy giving much worse overall service than a dispensary.
Your experience is nothing like what Georgia has going on.
Do you care to elaborate?
You should just look it up on norml.org for yourself really.
Basically though, GA has a very restrictive MMJ program with only low THC oil allowed at all and something like 6 dispensaries total in the whole state... Nothing like Colorado, Oregon, or New Mexico at all.
The option for pharmacies to dispense the super low THC oil was an idea to expand access in the state.
I agree with the other commenter here. I could see this going the other way for smaller towns or more rural areas, but where I am at right now there are 4 dispensaries and 2 pharmacies in a 5 mile radius.
It's also Sunday; one of those pharmacies is closed and the other one will close at 12 in the afternoon. As for the dispensaries, one of them will close at 5 and the others will close at 10 ~no different than any other day of the week.
Getting rid of dispensaries in favor of pharmacies here would benefit nobody except for the drug companies.
The nearest pharmacy is two miles away. The neareat dispensary is a half mile away. The 2nd nearest is across the street from that one.
There are more dispensaries than there are pharmacies, bars, and churches in my state.
If weed is one of your prescriptions and for one of many reasons it's hard to be out in public, being able to get it all in one place would be great.
It would be cool if it was an option, but not the only option. A lot of states have home delivery now too.
I can already see it (again): an employee of Walgreens that is not a pharmacy employee gets tasked to help the pharmacy during a busy period. They are put at the counter to grab and distribute customers' ready prescriptions. A customer comes up to the counter to pick up their prescription of marijuana, the employee sees the prescribed drug, and promptly refuses to give the customer their prescription. It's already happened in southern states with birth control, it feel confident it would happen in this scenario, too.
There are independent pharmacies. Compounding pharmacies are even in many small towns. They tailor medications specifically to your needs. They would be perfect places for patients using cannabis medicinally to get pre-set dosages.
There are some, sure. The largest 7 pharmacies have over 70% of the market though.
I live in Oregon in a city of 250k and literally every single independent pharmacy has been driven out of business because they can't compete against Walgreens and RightAid on drug pricing. These two companies are the only option outside of Walmart and Costco, and have terrible hours and reliability. Walgreens is only open M-F 8-5 and numerous times recently have been inexplicably closed in the middle of the day when I've gone to pick up prescriptions for my parents.
On the other hand, we have probably 100 different dispensaries in town all owned by different people. Prices are dirt cheap and availability is great. One is open 7 days a week from 7am to 10pm. Having this shit be handled by some corporate pharmacy would be a death sentence for the entire industry.
I see you've never taken prescription drugs for an extended period of time.
Biden priorities
Who let you on the internet? Don't you have some books to burn somewhere?
Biden can't wave his magic wand and make weed legal. This, however, is happening:
He absolutely doesnt have to challenge legality of state drug laws. This is his federal agency.
I never said he did. You need to read the link.
Your link doesnt have any substance, its wishful thinking and saying what folks wanna hear without doing anything. Meanwhile OP's article is about substantial action being taken against a state wanting to relax restrictions.
all of it is under Bidens discretion. He could have it rescheduled, not go after states legalization, anything short of federally legalizing it.
Congress can do that. Biden could push for it or try to do it by executive order but it’s not his decision or authority.
Until it is seriously studied with results compared to alternatives (not always a placebo) it isn't medicine doesn't belong in a pharmacy. That applies to marijuana just as much as homeopathy (which also doesn't belong in a pharmacy but is there)
Yes I know studies are hard and expensive. I'm also aware of all the other problems of getting FDA approval for products that are not patentable. Those are issues worth fixing and we can debate sometime what a good fix might be. However the process still exists for good reason, calling anything medicine that doesn't follow the process is a lie.
CVS, Walgreens, etc. all sell alcohol. Walmart and Kroger, which have pharmacies, also sell cigarettes.
I'm not seeing the problem with weed as well.
Edit: Come to think of it, I can go to any of those locations today and get CBD products, making this even more ridiculous.
Oh for fucks sake. People like you will never agree enough studies have been performed.
People like this always default to implying marijuana is some mysterious new invention. It's quite hilarious to read living in a state that first passed MMJ laws 28 years ago and even more hilarious when you learn that people have been using it for thousands of years at this point.
The barrier to medical studies has been the Federal Government (DEA) for several decades. They're changing it but slowly.
Since 1968 the only place researchers could legally obtain cannabis for research was from a government lab in Mississippi, and as noted below, they wouldn't even give you any. Researchers who did obtain it noted it was often old, low potency, and generally low quality, making it not very useful.
Linked DEA article:
On May 14, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration took an important step to increase opportunities for medical and scientific research. DEA is nearing the end of its review of certain marijuana grower applications, thereby allowing it to soon register additional entities authorized to produce marijuana for research purposes. Currently, the National Center for the Development of Natural Products at the University of Mississippi is the only approved supplier of marijuana for research purposes in the United States, and that production has been exclusively for the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
NPR notes:
Yet scientists still aren't allowed to simply use the cannabis sold at state-licensed dispensaries for their clinical research because cannabis remains illegal under federal law.
"We'll see a decade or more of explosive cannabis research and potential new therapies," says Dr. Steve Groff, founder and chairman of Groff North America, one of three companies that has publicly announced it has preliminary approval from the federal government to cultivate cannabis for research.
There are many more countries than the us
Huh, I might have heard of that before. Anyway, the US funds 44% of the world's medical research. Europe, 33%, and the situation hasn't been much different there. Canada and China have done some research on it. But my point is that the idea of formally researching medical cannabis isn't something people have just chosen not to do, though it's definitely not a priority for pharma companies.
Many of these places still sell cigarettes. CVS only stopped in the past 5 years... Not all things in pharmacies are medicine or any good for you.
While there are definite medical uses for cannabis, I always felt like the medical movement was both underhanded and dangerous.
It was underhanded because, like you said, there’s not a lot of research into its medical uses and doesn’t belong in a pharmacy. I’ve got a medical card, and my “diagnosis” consisted of me talking to a doctor for five minutes. It does help with my anxiety, but a lot of my usage is recreational.
It was dangerous because once we have medical research it won’t be hard to isolate the chemicals and make a pill, which puts recreational at risk of crackdown.
That already occurred decades ago - there was an Rx pill called Marinol, which was just a capsule with pure THC. It was prescribed to cancer and AIDS patients to encourage hunger and decrease nausea. Patients overwhelmingly preferred regular cannabis for a variety of reasons… one, it takes much longer for oral cannabis to take effect and it’s difficult to get the dosage right. Smoking or vaping is almost instant and you can take as many puffs as desired and judge it in real time. Also, people found the pure THC less effective and pleasant than the plant, which has many other active compounds besides just THC which moderate the effects. Some patients said that Marinol actually caused nausea, which makes sense to anyone who has ever dosed too much on edibles. More research on the other cannabinoids and their interaction is a good idea.
not a lot of research into its medical uses
Keep talking about shit you don’t understand. These serious medical studies have already been done time and time again even by the us gov themselves. Guess what they found?
Those who oppose rapid legalization of marijuana said the DEA’s stance will protect consumers and allow time for more research.
Rapid? US legalization started like 28 years ago. Nothing about the process has been rapid.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.