"x"

[peanutbutter]

This is a simple (perhaps) equation.

 

There is a number of people, within the State of Michigan, that will die as a result of liver damage from normal pain medication and alcohol consumption.

 

Let that number be X

 

We've seen hundreds of people, in Michigan, greatly decrease and/or completely stop using these pain medications if they are able to have a steady supply of marijuana. Marijuana also reduces the cravings for alcohol.

 

Let those be represented by 'Y'.

 

Several factors will cause the growth of Y to vary. Governmental repression and false information is a larger one of these factors.

 

The number of people that fail to die of liver failure is Z = X-(X-Y) ..

 

We are unable to point at a single person and say "this person didn't have liver failure because of mmj use instead of vicoden or oxycodone." What we can say is that the related costs involved in the medical care for failing livers will not be paid out.

 

State coffers and insurance costs will be benefit as a result.

 

In addition there are related costs involved in the violence related to the consumption of these substances. Both human and systemic.

 

Governmental repression is, again, a large factor in the speed and amount of cost savings.

 

And life savings.

 

Perhaps someone smarter than me will be able to figure out what X, Y and Z are.

 

BTW .. I wonder how much it costs to get a liver transplant? Times Z, of course.

[Mememe]

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/LiverDeathsFeb00_10427_7.pdf

ask and ye shall receive.

 

Liver transplant total cost is just over half a million $$

[+budhabit]

count me as one of the Y`s and success story involving liver disorders

[______]

I don't have the numbers but wouldn't be X-Y=?

[peanutbutter]

I don't have the numbers but wouldn't be X-Y=?

 

Thanks .. no that would be the number of people still dieing. So X-(X-Y). Thanks again. I'll adjust the formula.

 

?? rusty or what ???

[+RevThad]

I am not sure what you are trying to show with this equation, however I have an idea from your wording.

 

If you were trying to show cost savings you could state it as

Let X= the number of people that will suffer from liver damage due to presribed toxic pills

Let Y= the number of people that are using mmj instead of the toxic pills and therefore will not suffer from drug induced liver damage.

Let Z= the cost of a liver transplant and medical expenses of liver failure (currently around $500,000)

Let A= total cost without mmj

Let B= total cost with mmj

 

So first we need to figure out what the cost would be with no mmj.

X times Z = total cost with no mmj

 

Then we need to figure out what the cost is with mmj.

(X-Y) times Z = total cost with mmj

 

Then it is simple to figure the savings.

A-B= Total Savings

 

The tricky part is figuring out exactly what the values of X and Y are. According to the Drug Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) "the estimated global annual incidence rate of DILI is 13.9-24.0 per 100,000 inhabitants". Further the population according to the latest numbers here in Michigan is 9,969,727. So with a little math and using the middle of the incident band (19 per 100,000). We come up with a rounded figure of 1894 incidents annually in Michigan, note not all of those would be fatal, but almost all would require dialysis. From studies I have read even in the best case scenarios the cost of care came in at $69,100 (remember that is on the cases with the best prognosis).

 

Time to plug some numbers in, using best case scenarios.

 

With no mmj the cost would be:

1894 * $69,100 =$130,875,400 (best case scenario) or 1894 * 500,000 = $947,000,000 (worst case scenario).

 

 

I guess that is a place to start. Also note that these injuries are just the ones reported based on prescribed drugs, it does not take into account over the counter acetaminophen use.

[peanutbutter]

DING DING DING!! We have a winner!!

 

I'm so glad that some smart people post here!

 

I am not sure what you are trying to show with this equation, however I have an idea from your wording.

 

If you were trying to show cost savings you could state it as

Let X= the number of people that will suffer from liver damage due to presribed toxic pills

Let Y= the number of people that are using mmj instead of the toxic pills and therefore will not suffer from drug induced liver damage.

Let Z= the cost of a liver transplant and medical expenses of liver failure (currently around $500,000)

Let A= total cost without mmj

Let B= total cost with mmj

 

So first we need to figure out what the cost would be with no mmj.

X times Z = total cost with no mmj

 

Then we need to figure out what the cost is with mmj.

(X-Y) times Z = total cost with mmj

 

Then it is simple to figure the savings.

A-B= Total Savings

 

The tricky part is figuring out exactly what the values of X and Y are. According to the Drug Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) "the estimated global annual incidence rate of DILI is 13.9-24.0 per 100,000 inhabitants". Further the population according to the latest numbers here in Michigan is 9,969,727. So with a little math and using the middle of the incident band (19 per 100,000). We come up with a rounded figure of 1894 incidents annually in Michigan, note not all of those would be fatal, but almost all would require dialysis. From studies I have read even in the best case scenarios the cost of care came in at $69,100 (remember that is on the cases with the best prognosis).

 

Time to plug some numbers in, using best case scenarios.

 

With no mmj the cost would be:

1894 * $69,100 =$130,875,400 (best case scenario) or 1894 * 500,000 = $947,000,000 (worst case scenario).

 

 

I guess that is a place to start. Also note that these injuries are just the ones reported based on prescribed drugs, it does not take into account over the counter acetaminophen use.

 

Let's get this message refined so that it makes the politicians drool over the money.

[+RevThad]

You want a refined message. I can take a stab at that.

 

Reports state that prescibed drug induced liver injuries cost on average $538,937,700 (yes that is over half a Billon) a year to treat here in Michigan. To put that into perspective, this completely preventable cost is more than 1/3 of the total state budget deficit of $1.4 Billion.

 

Further, it is reported that prescription drug overdoses account for more deaths than cocaine and heroin. Also, that prescription drugs account for almost half of all drug related emergency room visits each year. The other costs associated with treatments of prescription drugs (mainly narcotics) range from $10k-15K per patient per year.

 

With the new health care law coming online soon, and the mandates included in it, being able to eliminate the costs of these fatalities and treatments would allow for a huge savings that could be realized by state, county, municipalities, employers and taxpayers.

 

I did suggest that these costs were preventable, and according to research they are. Medical Marijuana is non-addictive (unlike prescribed opiates), non toxic (unlike prescibed and over the counter meds like Tylenol or Vicodin), and there is no known lethal dose of marijuana.

 

So the question seems pretty clear. How many more police officers, teachers, nurses, fire fighters, and other public servants could we hire here in Michigan, if we took a simple step towards accepting the medical use of marijuana? Or possibly use that savings to pay off our debt? The ball is in your court.

 

After all we are just talking about treating patients with compassion and not doing any more damage to their bodies, we are not asking for full on legalization of marijuana.

_______________________

 

Any help with revising or reformatting would be appreciated.

[peanutbutter]

This is what I presented to the City Council of Coldwater:

 

We have seen a great reduction in the amount of opiate and alcohol consumption by people, in Michigan, that have been enabled with a steady supply of marijuana for medical purposes.

 

Reports state that prescribed drug induced liver injuries cost on average $538,937,700 (yes that is over half a Billon) a year to treat here in Michigan. To put that into perspective, this completely preventable cost is more than 1/3 of the total state budget deficit of $1.4 Billion.

 

Further, it is reported that prescription drug overdoses account for more deaths than cocaine and heroin. Also, that prescription drugs account for almost half of all drug related emergency room visits each year. The other costs associated with treatments of prescription drugs (mainly narcotics) range from $10k-15K per patient per year.

 

With the new health care law coming online soon, and the mandates included in it, being able to eliminate the costs of these fatalities and treatments would allow for a huge savings that could be realized by state, county, municipalities, employers and taxpayers.

 

I did suggest that these costs were preventable, and according to research they are. Medical Marijuana is non-addictive (unlike prescribed opiates), non toxic (unlike prescribed and over the counter meds like Tylenol or Vicodin), and there is no known lethal dose of marijuana.

 

So the question seems pretty clear. How many more police officers, teachers, nurses, fire fighters, and other public servants could we hire here in Michigan, if we took a simple step towards accepting the medical use of marijuana? Or possibly use that savings to pay off our debt? The ball is in your court.

 

After all we are just talking about treating patients with compassion and not doing any more damage to their bodies, we are not asking for full on legalization of marijuana.

 

Restrictions in access, to legal marijuana sources, forces patients to resort to criminal sources for their medicine.

 

Restricting patients supply supports crime.

 

This was followed by two local residents who testified they had been able to reduce their use of prescription pain killers.

 

That seems to do the trick.

 

I was assured that this was the most conservative area of the state. Yet they listened.

 

We're trying to save everyone money and save as many lives as we can.

[+RevThad]

Glad to read that they listened. The truth shall set them free. Oh and I really enjoy the way you tied crime into the message, beautifully done.

[peanutbutter]

Glad to read that they listened. The truth shall set them free. Oh and I really enjoy the way you tied crime into the message, beautifully done.

 

The police chief testified that there were "problems" related to dispensaries in California. That they encouraged crime.

 

The primary way in which they "encourage crime" is that such places are victims of theft.

 

The logic to prevent crime? Eliminate any potential target for crime.

 

I see. Make gas stations illegal because they might get robbed. Make banks illegal. That way there will be no more bank robbers.

[+RevThad]

Not to be super cynical (well maybe just a bit), I sometimes wonder how many of these robberies are committed by a certain arm of the federal government, so that they can keep pushing the notion of legalization being dangerous. Using the old catch 22, to keep running in circles. I won't get into the conspiracy theories I have heard and or witnessed pieces of, but it isn't that far fetched to believe.

 

Anyways, I think we are on the right track with showing the costs and savings associated with this issue. I need to do some research to get numbers on costs associated with prosecutions of small possession charges, and also on cleaning up the mess associated with chasing the black market (that is created by the prohibition).

 

I am suspecting that with just a little research and some common sense these folks will be able to see that any crime (violence and theft) associated with the black markets will almost vanish with legalization. The only reason there is a black market is there is money to be made, that money is directly proportionate to the ammount of risk associated with cultivating, holding, and distributing and not getting caught. If you take out the risk, that cost vanishes, and so does the profit margin for the black market, and with the disappearance of profit comes the vanishing of the crime itself.

 

It is what it is.