On 4/20 Another Pharma-Scam Mole Needs Whacked
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-04-20 09:58 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 184 references Ignore this thread
On 4/20 Another Pharma-Scam Mole Needs Whacked
[Comments enabled]

"Addiction Policy Forum" sounds good, right?

I mean, who could possibly like addiction?  We all want to solve that problem.

So on 4/20, the "cult" day where all those who like to get stoned burn one, Faux "I am Fake" Snooz publishes this crap.

In states where marijuana has been legalized, revenues for edibles have skyrocketed. Edibles are food products that contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the substance in marijuana that produces psychological effects, or cannabidiol (CBD). As marijuana businesses profit from these sales, some states are considering the taxation of marijuana products to fill budget gaps.

The lyin' lede.

Then we double it up....

There has been limited research on the effects of CBD among children and adolescents or whether CBD usage normalizes the use of marijuana in general. Therefore, we must be cautious about what the acceptance of marijuana-infused products will have on our society’s understanding of safe marijuana consumption and regulation.

CBD is non-intoxicating.  There is some evidence that it has positive impacts on health in some areas, but very little proof of it.  But this paragraph is intentionally misleading and a public fraud as it ties together CBD-infused products and marijuana, which is intoxicating.

And here's the lie:

However, even with these new marketing restrictions, emergency room visits for minors caused by inhaling or ingesting marijuana continue to rise. In fact, a recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine reported that “edible products accounted for 10.7 percent of marijuana-attributable visits between 2014 and 2016 but represented only 0.32 percent of total marijuana sales in Colorado (in kilograms of tetrahydrocannabinol) during that period.”

Since legalization, marijuana-related traffic deaths have increased 151 percent in Colorado, killing drivers, passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, 48 percent of pediatric marijuana intoxication cases reported to poison control centers in Colorado were attributed to the ingestion of edibles.

Not one of those incidents has anything to do with CBD.  They can't because CBD does not produce intoxication.

Second, since legalization the testing of drivers in wrecks for THC has become routine in Colorado, which is to be expected.  Formerly it was not routine.  Therefore you cannot draw any conclusion at all about whether "marijuana-related traffic deaths" have risen because prior to legalization while driving under the influence of THC was illegal it was only tested for if there was gross evidence present -- such as the car reeking of weed post-accident.  Now it's routine to test for such since the substance is legal and there are both field tests and laboratory testing available for DUI enforcement.

In other words now we look on a routine basis in Colorado if you get into a wreck for evidence that you might be intoxicated on marijuana where we didn't before.  If you suddenly started routinely having drivers blow for alcohol content where you didn't before the percentage of drivers you'd find with alcohol in their body would go up dramatically.  This doesn't mean suddenly people started drinking -- it only means you decided to look.

Second, "marijuana-related" is probably about as honest a statistic as "alcohol-related."

According to the government an accident is labeled "alcohol-related" if a passenger in a fatal car accident has alcohol in their blood or the driver has any detectable amount, irrespective of intoxication.

Yet in the first case that's a flat-out lie because the passenger wasn't driving and in the second there is no establishment of impairment since the driver was not over the legal limit and even if legally ruled not at fault (irrespective of intoxication) the crash will be claimed as "alcohol involved."  You could have had one beer two or three hours earlier and have a trace of alcohol in your body (e.g. 0.01% BAC) and then be hit from behind while stopped at a light and the government will call that an "alcohol-involved accident."  Likewise you could be legally drunk but lawfully stopped at that same light -- in other words, at the moment of the accident your state of intoxication is immaterial, be hit from behind by a stone cold sober driver and the accident will be ruled "alcohol involved."

By the way I've written on the edible situation before; it would be very reasonable and easy to require that THC-infused edibles include something prominently on the label regarding expected amounts to obtain "effects."  It may be obvious to anyone with a brain that a 10-square chocolate bar is divided into 10 squares for a reason and that one square will probably get you stoned, but there are a lot of idiots in the world.  More than a few of them might well eat the entire damn thing at once and get really stoned -- uncomfortably so, leading them to yank the "fire alarm" and call 911 or show up in the ER.  Unless you have a severe underlying health condition this is very unlikely to do anything more than make you very uncomfortable -- but avoiding that ridiculously-unnecessary call or trip to the ER is good, so why not put that information prominently on the label?  Like it or not we have a lot of 80-IQ and less people out there in the world.

Now that we've dealt with the science let's look at the organization that issued this horse****.

In 2017 this "organization" took in almost $4.6 million.  It is located in the lobbying district of Washington DC, on "K" Street, the infamous street.  But then again, perhaps this organization is an outlier instead of being a well-deserving recipient of my sincere prayer for a Flaming Meteor of Death that I make an invocation for each and every night.  Let's see.

It got nearly all of its money from alleged "program service revenue"; $3.9 million in 2017.  The rest was from contributions and grants.  It spent zero on professional fundraising (odd, for an advocacy organization), nothing on grants or benefits to members (again, odd for an organization that "helps people") and just $637,000 on salaries.  Oh, but it does have over $1 million in other expenses.

Hmmmm....

It claims not to engage in lobbying.  I suppose writing intentionally misleading OpEds doesn't count as lobbying, so, ok.  Nor does it declare any conflicts or other similar games, nor any membership that is entitled to some sort of benefit.

Its Executive Director is paid $189,000 for an average of just eight hours a week of effort.  I'd like that job!  That's a literal million dollar a year position, if you actually worked all 40 hours a week, which the fine Jessica Nickel (it's Executive Director) does not.  None of the other directors and officers work more than 2 hours a week, and none are paid.

There's plenty of money spread around though -- somehow this organization that has one paid director who works a whole 8 hours a week (that's one day a week, by the way) requires over a quarter of million a year of IT consulting services.  Heh, web sites are expensive these days; it's not like you can buy web hosting for $10/month.  Oh wait.....

Then there's I3Vision.  What's that company do, especially considering that they're based in Canada.  Oh..... maybe they're private cloud and webhosting?  Gee, that's expensive but they push all the right buttons and buzzwords -- AI, CRM, etc.  What does a non-profit with no customers and no members need in CRM?  Hmmm..

And then we get down to where the money comes from.

Line 2a, Part VIII.  Program Rev. PHRMA, $3.8 million.

PhRMA?!  Nearly all of the $3.966 million in revenue came from one place and guess what that is?

Now I get it.

Aren't public disclosures required to be filed by alleged "charities" wonderful?  Why you just need to look!  But the fake news folks never look, never question, and never hammer the writers of OpEds like this one who have clear and obvious conflicts of interest and appear to be putting out bull**** to advocate for the very industry that generated the opioid epidemic in the first place never mind the same industry that has every interest in making sure that someone can't choose a less-harmful form of pain relief whether that pain be physical or emotional in source.

And boy oh boy, over the last four years has that "support" grown for these folks -- from $200,000 in 2015 to nearly $4 million today with almost all of it coming from the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying arm.

In other words "Here comes Reefer Madness Part II" brought to by your friendly neighborhood pharmaceutical company's lobbyist organization that has been tirelessly dedicated to ****ing you up the ass for the last several decades.

View with responses (opens new window)