|
Oh, look what I just found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Medical
"In the United States, methamphetamine hydrochloride, under the trade name Desoxyn, has been approved by the FDA for treating ADHD and exogenous obesity (obesity originating from factors outside the patient's control) in both adults and children;[15][16] however, the FDA also indicates that the limited therapeutic usefulness of methamphetamine should be weighed against the inherent risks associated with its use." This is a big part of the issue. Pharma industries try to control alot of substances. Patent the shit out of a molecule and brand it, rebrand it and have complete control on legislation and future applications of these molecules.
Do you think if big pharmacy made meth that was safer, slightly less addictive, and didn't rot your teeth and flesh as quickly you would take it? If you have some curiosity towards feeling different states of consciousness or want to party or need some escape from a daily rut, why not? Stop being so narrowminded on issues like this. Addicts gonna be addicts, normal people who just want to do their own thing don't need to be punished for it. Drugs isn't for everyone (which should be obvious). I have a good amount of friends that, even they can be given anything on any occasion, are not interested in anything other than alcohol or marijuana (or even none of those) because they just do feel any incentive or motivation to take anything.
Also, I'm going to spend another bunch of lines to reiterate how fucked up the pharmaceutical industry and their philosophy really is. -10+ years to get a (revolutionary) medicine on the market, costing on average 1 billion dollars. -plethora of "medicine" that have unhealthy side effects -plethora of "medicine" that leave the user addicted. -plethora of "medicine" that are used to -control of the illicit substances (one of many implications are put above) -rebranding/repatenting of already established "medicines" because they found other therapeutic uses so they can milk even more out of a SINGLE MOLECULE. -buying out/silencing revolutionary found molecules because they'll potentially threaten the future sales of an already rivalising "medicine"
|
Your background is not medical/pharmaceutical is it? It really shows.
EDIT: Just to respond to the worst factual errors in your posting:
Also, I'm going to spend another bunch of lines to reiterate how fucked up the pharmaceutical industry and their philosophy really is. -10+ years to get a (revolutionary) medicine on the market, costing on average 1 billion dollars. I'm unsure what you complain about here. That it takes 10+ years is not because of the pharmaceutical companies but because it takes time to run the clinical trials required by FDA/EMA to achieve approval. These trials are crucial to ensure that drugs are safe and efficacious. -plethora of "medicine" that have unhealthy side effects Medicine will to some degree always have side effects due to the way receptors are spread in the different tissues throughout the body. If you want to complain about this, complain to Darwin/God for the bad design -plethora of "medicine" that leave the user addicted. It is a minority of medicine that makes users addicted - and it is a minority of people taking addictive drugs who end up addicts. There is also a difference between becoming addicted because of recreational use and use to quell terminal cancer pain -plethora of "medicine" that are used to You didn't finish this sentence? -control of the illicit substances (one of many implications are put above) Literally what? -rebranding/repatenting of already established "medicines" because they found other therapeutic uses so they can milk even more out of a SINGLE MOLECULE. That is not how the patent system works -buying out/silencing revolutionary found molecules because they'll potentially threaten the future sales of an already rivalising "medicine" Please come with some examples
|
Actually I have biomedical/biochem background so it actually kind of is. The longer I've been in the medical/biomedical/pharmaceutical circle, the more I've come to completely detest it because it's all about money instead of actually, you know, helping and saving people. Now I'm not going to generalize the entire medical industry because that's stupid, enough organisations and institutions are doing alot of good (I love university hospitals for example), the PSI + Show Spoiler +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Scherrer_Institute and MPRI + Show Spoiler +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Proton_Radiotherapy_Institute for example are also great organisations. But the fact remains that the way pharma is approaching alot of this, the wordt unethical and immoral doesn't even begin to describe things.
Edit: yeah looks like I didn't finish that sentence.. guess I have to delete that one, might've brainfarted as I found the better fitting sentence. God that looks dumb hahah. I'm going to respond to all your points, obviously.
|
Would you mind also explaining why you write "medicine"?
|
That it takes 10+ years is not because of the pharmaceutical companies but because it takes time to run the clinical trials required by FDA/EMA to achieve approval. These trials are crucial to ensure that drugs are safe and efficacious. I understand it takes time to make sure the medicine is effective. That it has to take 10+ years and that much money, however? I'm highly sceptical of that. This seems like a system that's just inefficient at its core and I'm not afraid to voice that scepticism.
Medicine will to some degree always have side effects due to the way receptors are spread in the different tissues throughout the body. If you want to complain about this, complain to Darwin/God for the bad design Ofcourse medicine will have side effects. I never said they can only put something on the market that has no side effects, because that's almost not possible. However, medicine is mostly viewed as a cure, while it is not, it's simply a treatment to ease symptoms.
It is a minority of medicine that makes users addicted - and it is a minority of people taking addictive drugs who end up addicts. There is also a difference between becoming addicted because of recreational use and use to quell terminal cancer pain True. But there's a difference when having to take a substance for therapeutic use and getting addicted to it, than using an illegal substance and getting addicted to it. Someone with an authority on life and health prescribed you something that is possibly able to make you dependent on that substance. Now is it a problem of patient - doctor - pharmacist interaction, probably. Can it be solely put on the patient's shoes, some of the cases, sure. But it is a problem that needs to be solved.
Literally what? I understand this may even sound a bit tinfoil, but it's just naive to think that the people with the money don't exert power/control over what is and isn't controlled in this world.
That is not how the patent system works Insert fancy and obscure lawyer work here to creatively extend the lifespan of said patent or put it under different parameters to create a "new" patent and voila. You have found the thin grey area of patent law. I will admit that I don't know enough about patent law to actually say alot of stuff with authority about this, but this rebranding for different therapeutic uses does happen, whether it there'll be new patents involved or not.
Please come with some examples I have issues getting examples for this, I'll admit that. But is it so farfetched to think this doesn't happen? When the current free market philosphy simply stated says: big fish eats small fish. So when a small fish comes with something or when during the development and big investment of a certain drug there comes something new, potentially better, they'll simply buy it out.
Would you mind also explaining why you write "medicine"? I guess that's my personal gripe with the word hah, the word leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason. Guess it's tied to personal connotations or something.
|
On June 12 2015 03:07 Ghostcom wrote: Would you mind also explaining why you write "medicine"? For someone that came here to show his huge penis on the pharma industry, you really should educate yourself more.
Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/ 2015 http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html 2009
SECOND LOWEST DEATH RATE. The country with the most liberal drug laws of EU has LESS THAN A FIFTH of the EU average for drug overdose, a country that 15 years ago was topping the EU charts for new HIV cases. Get your heads out of your asses.
Bring facts to the discussion, your anti drugs theories are shit and have zero evidence supporting them. People who want to try drugs WILL try drugs. It's our job as a society to support this group of our population and treat them as any others.
IMO drug deniers are a bunch of hypocrites. What's worse about weed than nicotin or alcohol? Why so much effort on stopping drug legalization or decriminalization and zero effort for banning out those two? US actually had banned alcohol some years ago, and now it's legal. A potentially(it's pretty certain but let's assume it isn't) more harmful and addictive substance. People still got their hands on it (before cellphones, internet or silkroad were even a thing) and the war on it brought nothing but bloodshed and lost money. Think people have ANY problem getting their hands on drugs now? Can't we learn from history?
|
On June 12 2015 03:43 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +That it takes 10+ years is not because of the pharmaceutical companies but because it takes time to run the clinical trials required by FDA/EMA to achieve approval. These trials are crucial to ensure that drugs are safe and efficacious. I understand it takes time to make sure the medicine is effective. That it has to take 10+ years and that much money, however? I'm highly sceptical of that. This seems like a system that's just inefficient at its core and I'm not afraid to voice that scepticism.
Developing a compound and making sure it binds to the required receptors as well as developing a delivery mechanism alone take 3-5 years. Speeding this up has historically proven incredibly difficult although technological advances help to some degree. The clinical trials themselves will take 3-6 years simply due to the required follow-up time. In theory you could speed up some of these trials but it would come at the expense of patient safety - we obviously don't want that. The pipeline for developing new drugs is constantly being optimized, but some things simply take time. Your criticism is neither novel, nor is it particularly enlightened - we all wish it would go faster.
Show nested quote +Medicine will to some degree always have side effects due to the way receptors are spread in the different tissues throughout the body. If you want to complain about this, complain to Darwin/God for the bad design Ofcourse medicine will have side effects. I never said they can only put something on the market that has no side effects, because that's almost not possible. However, medicine is mostly viewed as a cure, while it is not, it's simply a treatment to ease symptoms.
Antibiotics and anti-virals can actually be cures, but leave that aside. You are right that the vast majority of medications are used to treat, not cure, diseases. I'm unsure how that is a negative tho, and I'm especially unsure how that is an argument for making cocaine freely available? When a disease is being treated the symptoms are obviously worse than the possible side-effects of the medications used - else we would not use the medication (take cox-II inhibitors as an example where usage was stopped following post-marketing analysis showing increased mortality).
Show nested quote +It is a minority of medicine that makes users addicted - and it is a minority of people taking addictive drugs who end up addicts. There is also a difference between becoming addicted because of recreational use and use to quell terminal cancer pain True. But there's a difference when having to take a substance for therapeutic use and getting addicted to it, than using an illegal substance and getting addicted to it. Someone with an authority on life and health prescribed you something that is possibly able to make you dependent on that substance. Now is it a problem of patient - doctor - pharmacist interaction, probably. Can it be solely put on the patient's shoes, some of the cases, sure. But it is a problem that needs to be solved.
If you are not getting this drug you either die or experience excruciating pain. You are not given narcotics for the fun of it - which is the entire point of having drugs being heavily regulated. That people are using addictive drugs are not a bad thing in itself. It only becomes a bad thing if they actually become addicted and that addiction actually interferes with their lives.
I understand this may even sound a bit tinfoil, but it's just naive to think that the people with the money don't exert power/control over what is and isn't controlled in this world. No I literally didn't understand what you were trying to say. Class A narcotics are not tightly regulated because the evil FDA/Narcotics department wants to keep the little man down. It is regulated because many of these drugs are addictive and have potency to kill if not used correctly.
Insert fancy and obscure lawyer work here to creatively extend the lifespan of said patent or put it under different parameters to create a "new" patent and voila. You have found the thin grey area of patent law. I will admit that I don't know enough about patent law to actually say alot of stuff with authority about this, but this rebranding for different therapeutic uses does happen, whether it there'll be new patents involved or not.
Simply getting approval to broaden the label-usage of a drug will not extend your patent. Admittedly there are drugs that have applied for an extension of their patent and received it, but those are case-specific and in many cases for good reason. There are also absolutely patents which are dubiously made, but that is a case of the patent office, not the medical industry - just take a look at the electronics industry for a unrelated industry with the same problems.
I have issues getting examples for this, I'll admit that. But is it so farfetched to think this doesn't happen? When the current free market philosphy simply stated says: big fish eats small fish. So when a small fish comes with something or when during the development and big investment of a certain drug there comes something new, potentially better, they'll simply buy it out.
So the small fish is bought, the formula is placed in a shelf never to be used again - never mind that it could probably have made 10 times the revenue of the former drug... Nah, whilst it happens that pharmaceutical companies buy out smaller companies it is usually to harvest their patents and then actually use those patents to increase their own revenues.
I guess that's my personal gripe with the word hah, the word leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason. Guess it's tied to personal connotations or something. Right
|
On June 12 2015 03:51 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 03:07 Ghostcom wrote: Would you mind also explaining why you write "medicine"? For someone that came here to show his huge penis on the pharma industry, you really should educate yourself more. Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/ 2015 http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html 2009 SECOND LOWEST DEATH RATE. The country with the most liberal drug laws of EU has LESS THAN A FIFTH of the EU average for drug overdose, a country that 15 years ago was topping the EU charts for new HIV cases. Get your heads out of your asses. Bring facts to the discussion, your anti drugs theories are shit and have zero evidence supporting them. People who want to try drugs WILL try drugs. It's our job as a society to support this group of our population and treat them as any others. IMO drug deniers are a bunch of hypocrites. What's worse about weed than nicotin or alcohol? Why so much effort on stopping drug legalization or decriminalization and zero effort for banning out those two? US actually had banned alcohol some years ago, and now it's legal. A potentially(it's pretty certain but let's assume it isn't) more harmful and addictive substance. People still got their hands on it (before cellphones, internet or silkroad were even a thing) and the war on it brought nothing but bloodshed and lost money. Think people have ANY problem getting their hands on drugs now? Can't we learn from history?
Well I actually only think that I'm averagely equipped for a Dane, but then again we are as a nation pretty well endowed...
If you wouldn't mind, please point me towards my anti drugs theories, because I'm not sure of which you speak?
|
On June 12 2015 04:17 Ghostcom wrote: If you wouldn't mind, please point me towards my anti drugs theories, because I'm not sure of which you speak? If I wanted to talk about you, I would take it to PM's. A post on a thread is about a thread. If you can't find anti drug theories in here, that's another problem.
|
On June 12 2015 04:25 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 04:17 Ghostcom wrote: If you wouldn't mind, please point me towards my anti drugs theories, because I'm not sure of which you speak? If I wanted to talk about you, I would take it to PM's. A post on a thread is about a thread. If you can't find anti drug theories in here, that's another problem.
So you call out my penis size, tell me to educate myself because my theories are unsupported and then refuse to point out what theories you are talking about... Are you stoned right now?
|
the drug war is merely class warfare. it was never about drugs.
the policies put in place were meant to disrupt the counter culture movements and keep minorities down. it has been very successful doing that. you'll probably see pot decriminalized because pot isn't just a hispanic or black drug anymore. dope, crack, and meth will not be decriminalized and we'll continue to have a large percentage of our population live as second class citizens. america is extremely racist and hates poor people. those lazy moochers.
|
Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
|
the war on drugs is a profit/control machine for the elites who pull the strings.
they buy the politicians who massage the laws to favor their business model. they profit on the drugs directly as they are in league with the cartels. they profit on the prison-for-profit industry that's growing by leaps and bounds. think they pay for the current public prisons? nope, 'taxpayers' do. add to that nearly completely dismantling the mental health care system to ensure a steady stream of prison 'clients' - just in case everyone 'obeys' the laws....
and everybody wins except for the livestock caught in the gears of the system... so what else is new? the war on drugs is good for business, so what's your beef?
the fact that in America, profits are better than life?
|
On June 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 04:25 misirlou wrote:On June 12 2015 04:17 Ghostcom wrote: If you wouldn't mind, please point me towards my anti drugs theories, because I'm not sure of which you speak? If I wanted to talk about you, I would take it to PM's. A post on a thread is about a thread. If you can't find anti drug theories in here, that's another problem. So you call out my penis size, tell me to educate myself because my theories are unsupported and then refuse to point out what theories you are talking about... Are you stoned right now? Sorry if it came out like that but nothing below the first paragraph is about you specifically. Blame it on the fact that "you" and "you" write and sound the same
|
On June 12 2015 04:54 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On June 12 2015 04:25 misirlou wrote:On June 12 2015 04:17 Ghostcom wrote: If you wouldn't mind, please point me towards my anti drugs theories, because I'm not sure of which you speak? If I wanted to talk about you, I would take it to PM's. A post on a thread is about a thread. If you can't find anti drug theories in here, that's another problem. So you call out my penis size, tell me to educate myself because my theories are unsupported and then refuse to point out what theories you are talking about... Are you stoned right now? Sorry if it came out like that but nothing below the first paragraph is about you specifically. Blame it on the fact that "you" and "you" write and sound the same
Would you then specify what I should educate myself more on?
|
On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
Yeah but employers can set standards and regulate their businesses so people don't smoke or drink on the job, I'm pretty sure they already do. I find it really comical to imagine a company being supportive of people lying in a pool or their own urine in a a cubicle office, and the manager walking by and giving him a thumbs up.
I think the whole point is that drugs are finding a way into the country anyway. Given that we have to make a realistic and practical choice. Continue to effectively support the smuggling operations and multi-billion dollar empires of criminal cartels that slaughter at least hundreds of people and corrupt law enforcement each year, or provide a legal avenue to get those drugs in a safe way, while also providing education and support in case things go too far.
Which do you think is better, a guy hiding in an alleyway injecting some substance from mexico, and having nowhere to turn to should be become addicted - or a person being administered in a clinic and speaking to doctors if he feels he has gone too far?
Also on the social vs private spheres. The point of living in a free society is exactly that - you have the right and freedom to do what you want. The only limit is when the private starts interfering negatively with the public. In this case its not clear why it would be negative; if anything (as outlined above) it would make things better and lead to less gang warfare in cities (locally for distribution, and abroad for production). For the most part these are personal struggles. And the only way you are permanently going to deal with the issue is not through criminalization but through education. In the mean time, you can at least reduce the massive collateral damage (including unnecessary mandatory minimum sentences for the silliness of smoking weed). And no I'm not a pot head for those who assume otherwise, and I rarely ever drink.
|
On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
"drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves" Drugs DO ruin lives. But the current state of things ruins way more lives. Bob is thinking of trying drugs (thousands of reasons, pick one, it isnt relevant). Bob is presented with an opportunity to do said drug he wanted to try (don't kid yourselves, the opportunity will present itself). Bob does drug. Now Bob has an addiction. He can either a) continue to do drugs, b) try to stop by himself or c) seek help. In a country where drug use is a crime he can't do C because he can go to jail and 90% won't be capable of achieving B. To me it makes perfect sense that if an addict is seeking help with his addiction he shouldn't be punished with jailtime. The only victim of his "crime" was himself, is he gonna sue charges for those crimes? How is jail time helping anyone in that position?
"Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. "
As I said earlier, people should get their heads out of their asses. I fucking linked the article some posts before and you didn't even bother to read
|
On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
You can't go invent your own drug and use it. It'd need to be tested, and then once it is, the government would tell you no. Not to mention you need permission to have a drug synthesis laboratory, I can't legally do this in my house or shed.
That aside, I agree with you. In a western society, you are not allowed to do whatever you want. That's why you are not allowed to biking at night without a light. You have to legally wear a seat belt.
So let me tell you how this works. Where I live, a 750ml bottle of Vodka is taxed at roughly $10 by a government regulatory body, and cigarettes are taxed at 70% or so. And that's why, sure, you're allowed to smoke, but when you get lung cancer, you are getting free public healthcare because you paid these high taxes. In the same way, the high tax on alcohol is so we can offset the need for police to make sure people aren't driving drunk. As well as to offset the lost life (I believe most US institutions use roughly 5-10 million USD as a statistical valuation of life).
So in the traditional sense, the tax of say heroin would have to be:
-The cost of loss of productive of users -Money needed to spend on adverse health affects -The cost of the negative impact on your family and friends -The cost to society of living in a more dangerous society -Cost of enforcement
So of course you're looking at a high cost, but due to how difficult it would be to control that things are going as intended, it's just not a justification worth it. And, look at it this way, if you are living in a democratic country, and more than 50% of the population support drug legalization... Then it should happen? As you can simply vote the party out?
As someone who works hard to make a good life for himself and his family, I am fully against drug legalization - and think it's mostly the young demographic that did not do a thorough analysis of all the pros and cons.
|
Practically everyone uses drugs eventually. I'd say that is over-generalization...
|
On June 12 2015 05:08 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 04:39 weikor wrote: Even if you argue that its your choice whatyou put into your body, another argument could also be made for what it does to society.
Drugs have a negative impact on productivity, even ones like tobacco and Alcohol. I think most of us would agree that we feel less comfortable in public when we see someone wasted / lying on the floor in his own urine.
Sure, for most "responsible people" drugs could all be legal and it wouldnt change anything. But to be honest - drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves. Its such a dark place to go, and for a lot of people there is no recovery.
Youre leeching off the accomplishments of society when you type on your computer, go to the fridge or consume anything that someone else has invented. Even drugs are discoveries made by someone else. So why shouldnt it be a collective decision if they are legal or not. You are allowed to invent your own drug and use it, are you not?
Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. I know a lot more people that smoke cigarettes than weed.
"drugs can ruin lives, families and the people themselves" Drugs DO ruin lives. But the current state of things ruins way more lives. Bob is thinking of trying drugs (thousands of reasons, pick one, it isnt relevant). Bob is presented with an opportunity to do said drug he wanted to try (don't kid yourselves, the opportunity will present itself). Bob does drug. Now Bob has an addiction. He can either a) continue to do drugs, b) try to stop by himself or c) seek help. In a country where drug use is a crime he can't do C because he can go to jail and 90% won't be capable of achieving B. To me it makes perfect sense that if an addict is seeking help with his addiction he shouldn't be punished with jailtime. The only victim of his "crime" was himself, is he gonna sue charges for those crimes? How is jail time helping anyone in that position? "Im also sure that consumption would go up if they were legal. " As I said earlier, people should get their heads out of their asses. I fucking linked the article some posts before and you didn't even bother to read
My girlfriend has never had an opportunity to try any drug until she was 21, and that was offered by another one of her friends, who's never smoked weed before - to smoke weed. I think too many people don't realize, that if you truly want to stay away from drugs, you're able to quite easily. In high school, I didn't, I sought those kind of rebellious friends, but that was a decision I made.
I was a smoker for maybe 2 years, so I can relate to addiction. In Canada, from your example:
a) You don't just get addicted like that. It's not like you take a drug against your force and then all of the sudden you can't stop. There's always a reason you do so. This is what we want to avoid. b) Stopping yourself is a way. If you really ask yourself, why am I doing this? That's what I did with my smoking? What's the void in my life... Is it that I'm bored, stressed? How can I go to fix it?... I think almost any sane person, if they are educated in what Meth will do to them, will re-evaluate what happiness it's bringing them, and whether it's really worth it. That's how I stopped smoking, even though the health consequences are much smaller. c) If you go get help, you don't go to jail here. You come out, and they will help you, they'll make a program for you... They'll take you to a hospital where you wont have access to the drugs, give you education, give you a psychologist, get down to the root of your problem... If you want to quit, but don't have the willpower yourself, we will help you.
|
|
|
|