The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
The"War on Drugs" is an abysmal failure. I think that's an objective reality. Until we can agree on that part it's pretty hard to have fruitful discussion.
On June 11 2015 11:43 killa_robot wrote: So, we should allow all drugs because it's morally superior to not allowing all drugs?
Has this guy even seen what some of the drugs out there do to you?
Have people even seen what the War on Drugs has done to people?
Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
"The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well.
But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into.
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
"The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well.
But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into.
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
Practically everyone uses drugs eventually.
I'm not for abolishing the FDA but they could certainly use an overhaul. Cannabis is the most obvious example of what's screwy, but this idea of keeping people safe is kind of hogwash.
The drugs the government regulates kill more people than the ones they don't.
Denying cannabis to veterans is probably the single most obvious case of the government pushing people towards addiction to more dangerous and addictive (and coincidentally legally profitable) drugs (opiates) directly in violation of the concept that they are trying to keep people safe.
Then when people find out crappy heroin is cheaper, everyone wants to blame heroin (even though it's usually adulterants that kill people [because that's how you make heroin cheaper]) and none of the things that led the person to it (unless it's that evil gateway 'drug' cannabis).
The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well.
But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into.
I may have missed it, but how did you get from legalising/decriminalising drugs to abolishing the FDA/regulatory bodies?
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well.
What a terrible, misinformed, narrow, stupid thing to say.
You can point to literally ANY activity and there will be a subset of people in that activity who are failures.
The overwhelming majority of drug users are recreational and perform perfectly normally in society
There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
Gay marriage is legal in about 20 countries around the globe, is "there a reason" (that is good, which you are implying) why it's not legal in the other 200+?
Or can it be that what is legal/illegal is not the same as what is right or moral or ethical?
I'm a big proponent for this case. Not only is it so that people who want to experiment will get their hands on the drug of choice eventually. But they'll most of the time get it via an unreliable source, making the possibility of it going wrong because impurity, unknown cocktail, wrong concentration, ... that much higher. Drugs are NOT dangerous in moderation, no matter how much you want to believe it is. No matter how you've been taught otherwise. If you learn to deal with it in a responsible way, if you're provided the grade A shit from a reliable source, so many ifs, .. then you'll see a dramatic change in 1) drug use en 2) drug related incidents.
But.. We have to look at the irresponsibility of human nature ofcourse. Alcohol, for example, is a hard drug, makes you addicted and fucks up your body. And this is where it stands in relation to other drugs when you look at dependence (how much you are likely to get addicted to it) versus the active/lethal dose (ratio between when you get a good high from it to when you die from it)
The big problem is alot of people get to these drugs because they are uneducated, want relief for their shitty lives, are poor. They get their hands on the bad shit, feel incrementally better from their shitty lives and get hooked because.. it makes them feel better then to work all day in and out or having to fight for scraps or whatever (I'm going a bit hyperbolic here I know) Also, it's cheaper than alcohol. There is just a horrible backwards way of thinking with the approach to drug use control and distribution because it's not actually helping and it's spreading misinformation, seeping into a great percentage of people coming close to indoctrination.
It all comes down to this for me. Educate people, make sure they understand what it means to commit to a drug. Every drug CAN potentially be dangerous if you are irresponsible with it (take unnecessary cocktails, unnecessary amounts in a small amount of time, get it from an unreliable source, ...) but if you know what you're doing, if you're guided in the process, it only should be a positive experience.
Lastly a point about addiction. Don't you think that the people who are now addicted to alcohol would become addicted to something else anyway? So why would it be a bigger problem to have a cocaine addiction over an alocohol addiction for example? Both can be done in a functioning way (to a certain extent) and both are fucked up and shouldn't happen in the first place. But some people just can't exert enough control over themselves and will fall ino the trap anyway.
The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
"The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well.
But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into.
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
Practically everyone uses drugs eventually.
I'm not for abolishing the FDA but they could certainly use an overhaul. Cannabis is the most obvious example of what's screwy, but this idea of keeping people safe is kind of hogwash.
The drugs the government regulates kill more people than the ones they don't.
Denying cannabis to veterans is probably the single most obvious case of the government pushing people towards addiction to more dangerous and addictive (and coincidentally legally profitable) drugs (opiates) directly in violation of the concept that they are trying to keep people safe.
Then when people find out crappy heroin is cheaper, everyone wants to blame heroin (even though it's usually adulterants that kill people [because that's how you make heroin cheaper]) and none of the things that led the person to it (unless it's that evil gateway 'drug' cannabis).
I'm very interested in hearing what you would like to alter about the FDA? As well as what your experience with the FDA is?
Of course the drugs the government regulate kill more people than the ones they don't. The drugs the government regulate happen to be regulated because they are dangerous and they are only approved in the first place because they are to be used for severe illness which would, untreated, be more dangerous than the drugs.
Equating recreational cannabis-use to opioids is stupid as one is used recreationally whilst the other is being used to treat a disease is on the class A narcotics list and thus under strict surveillance. Whilst THC in a pill might be useful in future pain treatment (the literature could be better in that area), smoking/vaping marijuana will never be as it is a shitty way to introduce drugs to the body.
On June 11 2015 12:43 AxiomBlurr wrote: Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
That's why term should really be decriminalizing, not legalizing.
Weed is one thing. I really don't think society would be any worse if there was weed being sold where people buy alcohol, for example.
But the "hard stuff"? That should never be distributed. They need to remain "controlled substances". Just stop putting people in jail for using the stuff -- because that's fucking useless for everybody, at best.
On June 11 2015 12:43 AxiomBlurr wrote: Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
That's why term should really be decriminalizing, not legalizing.
Weed is one thing. I really don't think society would be any worse if there was weed being sold where people buy alcohol, for example.
But the "hard stuff"? That should never be distributed. They need to remain "controlled substances". Just stop putting people in jail for using the stuff -- because that's fucking useless for everybody, at best.
Weed should not be legalised for the terrible smell it creates alone. Unless governments ban smoking in the public sphere altogether of coures.
I also can't help but notice that many people who want to decriminalise weed are potheads.
Some benefits of legalizing drugs: - lower cost for law enforcement, court proceedings and prisons - tax revenue from legally sold drugs, new legal jobs and businesses in that business area - controlled quality of drugs, lower health risks - youth protection when buying drugs in an ordinary shop or pharmacy instead of a criminal dealer - takes revenue away from dealers, mafia, gangs and drug cartels, resulting in the whole sector shrinking and fewer related crimes - cheaper drugs, resulting in less crime associated with obtaining drugs
On June 11 2015 12:43 AxiomBlurr wrote: Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
That's why term should really be decriminalizing, not legalizing.
Weed is one thing. I really don't think society would be any worse if there was weed being sold where people buy alcohol, for example.
But the "hard stuff"? That should never be distributed. They need to remain "controlled substances". Just stop putting people in jail for using the stuff -- because that's fucking useless for everybody, at best.
Weed should not be legalised for the terrible smell it creates alone. Unless governments ban smoking in the public sphere altogether of coures.
I also can't help but notice that many people who want to decriminalise weed are potheads.
I don't use or have any desire to use any type of drug (I don't even drink) and I'm pro-legalization of marijuana. Once you look at the benefits of it, it's actually kinda hard to be against it. If we tax and regulate it like tobacco it ends up being a net positive. We can place the same restrictions on it for where it is used as tobacco (no smoking it in public places like restaurants). There's also the benefit of a lot of users not smoking it but instead using it by other means so it has the potential to be even less noticeable than tobacco.
But even for the "harder" drugs and party drugs, would it not be better to remove all that money from organized crime and ensure safety? I'm not for full on legalization of meth or anything, but decriminalizing that type of thing, maybe giving addicts a safer source to get them, while at the same time providing support programs to help those addicted get on the road to recovery is much better than basically shaming them and treating them like criminals. The sad truth is that there will always be people using those drugs, so it would be better to guarantee they have places and ways to do them in a safe manner and help with prevention of issues related to them (for example, providing needles to prevent the chance of spreading blood-borne illnesses).
That's the issue I've always had with the whole "War on Drugs" approach. It doesn't accomplish anything. Throwing people in jail and threatening them with moral arguments doesn't really do anything. Drug use prevention programs for children and the like are fine, but treating users like garbage and ignoring their issues will not make the problem go away. Treating them like human beings and offering them help will do far more.
Actually, not that long ago, I read an article about how the high quality weed from the US gets exported to Mexico, and Mexican farmers stop growing weed. Sometimes for veggies, sometimes for poppies...
I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
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? Sure, a lot of these scenarios involving drugs suck, but I just don't see the average person who avoids doing X or Y to suddenly pick up X or Y just because it is legal.
On June 11 2015 22:19 Scorch wrote: Some benefits of legalizing drugs: - lower cost for law enforcement, court proceedings and prisons - tax revenue from legally sold drugs, new legal jobs and businesses in that business area - controlled quality of drugs, lower health risks - youth protection when buying drugs in an ordinary shop or pharmacy instead of a criminal dealer - takes revenue away from dealers, mafia, gangs and drug cartels, resulting in the whole sector shrinking and fewer related crimes - cheaper drugs, resulting in less crime associated with obtaining drugs
Pretty much 100% what I was about to post. Right on!
"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 +
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 04:17 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 04:17 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 04:17 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.
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.
The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
"The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well.
But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into.
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
Practically everyone uses drugs eventually.
I'm not for abolishing the FDA but they could certainly use an overhaul. Cannabis is the most obvious example of what's screwy, but this idea of keeping people safe is kind of hogwash.
The drugs the government regulates kill more people than the ones they don't.
Denying cannabis to veterans is probably the single most obvious case of the government pushing people towards addiction to more dangerous and addictive (and coincidentally legally profitable) drugs (opiates) directly in violation of the concept that they are trying to keep people safe.
Then when people find out crappy heroin is cheaper, everyone wants to blame heroin (even though it's usually adulterants that kill people [because that's how you make heroin cheaper]) and none of the things that led the person to it (unless it's that evil gateway 'drug' cannabis).
I'm very interested in hearing what you would like to alter about the FDA? As well as what your experience with the FDA is?
Of course the drugs the government regulate kill more people than the ones they don't. The drugs the government regulate happen to be regulated because they are dangerous and they are only approved in the first place because they are to be used for severe illness which would, untreated, be more dangerous than the drugs.
Equating recreational cannabis-use to opioids is stupid as one is used recreationally whilst the other is being used to treat a disease is on the class A narcotics list and thus under strict surveillance. Whilst THC in a pill might be useful in future pain treatment (the literature could be better in that area), smoking/vaping marijuana will never be as it is a shitty way to introduce drugs to the body.
Good lord.
Well I suppose I would start with this...
In April 2005, the FDA issued a statement asserting that cannabis had no medical value and should not be accepted as a medicine, despite a great deal of research suggesting the opposite.
That's clearly corruption or insatiable ignorance.
Of course the drugs the government regulate kill more people than the ones they don't. The drugs the government regulate happen to be regulated because they are dangerous and they are only approved in the first place because they are to be used for severe illness which would, untreated, be more dangerous than the drugs.
That's total bs. The ones they don't, like heroin, meth, and cocaine are the "dangerous hard drugs" people are generally talking about. Besides the fact that 2 are still currently marketed and sold by big pharma (desoxyn, morphine,etc...) they still kill less people than prescription medication OD's.
As for 'would be more serious if left untreated' how in the world can you think that?
Just look at something like Restless leg syndrome... Xanax and sinemet are so far from safer than just dealing with RLS it's ridiculous people would even think that.
Sinemet can turn you into a compulsive gambler, and it might even make you sleep drive to the casino to do it....
Sounds like you know nothing about medical cannabis and the opiate epidemic in our military.
I've personally spoken with vets from Vietnam to Iraq and the ones who were injured to the point they were being fed opiates all came to cannabis because they wanted their lives back. Opiates were destroying their livers, killed their sex drive, often led to depression and hopelessness about being addicted and a lot more problems. They have found that CBD's are actually quite helpful for the pain without much negative side effects (even if they still have to take some opiates).
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?
http://www.liquiddota.com/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=24400508 Specifically the point about the big fish eats small fish. I'm pretty sure you know what he is talking about but you're too narrow-minded to accept it. It's ridiculous that we spent billions and decades on cancer, alzheimer and aids (and many others) and there's nothing close to a cure. There isn't even an argument to be made here when you compare the farmaceutical industry with other industries like communications and electronics with similar funding. If every company was like Bayer, we wouldn't have 3.0GHz Quad core commercial processors. We would just have iPhones (still black and white screen because color led screens are expensive to develop) with a new casing every year
By the way I found it interesting to look at Andrew Bernstein's bio Link. Turns out he LOVES AYN RAND!!! He's an objectivist philosopher!
His areas of expertise include Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s novels, the nature of heroism, the history of capitalism and its moral superiority to other systems, and application of the principle of individual rights to a broad array of topical issues, including health care, abortion, gun ownership, immigration, and the war on drugs. He also lectures at high schools, both in the New York area and nationally, regarding Ayn Rand’s novels and philosophy.
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.
But your own examples is proof of what I claimed to be true. Opportunities present themselves, sooner or later. And the more you want something, the sooner it will come. Your GF didn't seek drugs out and was presented with them anyway. She chose to stay away but not everyone would make the same decision. Making it hard to get won't make less people use it. Making it like any other thing will.
I didn't try to suggest that addiction will appear over night. Conversely, the reason that led you to drugs doesn't appear over night either. Some will get out of it without an addiction but most don't. It's great that in Canada you can seek help without fear of incarceration but I don't think the same applies to every other place in the world, including the US. Do you get a criminal record there though?
Deep, my own mother died of cancer and I wished people back then were more open minded (before decriminalization) because I know how much the chemo affected her.
Deep, my own mother died of cancer and I wished people back then were more open minded (before decriminalization) because I know how much the chemo affected her.
It doesn't work for everyone but it takes some proud ignorance and/or wicked vitriol to deny cannabis as an option for dealing with chemo's side effects.
Imo, alcohol is already borderline, you don't get addicted that easily but once it's started the exposition is so huge it ruins a lot of lives. Those kind of drugs should be forbidden. And that's from a consumer point of view, who also happened to work in several ospitals.
On the other hand, I've first hand witnessed cannabis being way more effective than morphine as a painkiller with lesser side effects.
Overall there should be some changes legislation wise, but allowing everything is too dangerous. Alcohol is already doing too much damage imo but it's so effective taken the right way to feel relaxed and have some good time.
The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
"The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well.
But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into.
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
Practically everyone uses drugs eventually.
I'm not for abolishing the FDA but they could certainly use an overhaul. Cannabis is the most obvious example of what's screwy, but this idea of keeping people safe is kind of hogwash.
The drugs the government regulates kill more people than the ones they don't.
Denying cannabis to veterans is probably the single most obvious case of the government pushing people towards addiction to more dangerous and addictive (and coincidentally legally profitable) drugs (opiates) directly in violation of the concept that they are trying to keep people safe.
Then when people find out crappy heroin is cheaper, everyone wants to blame heroin (even though it's usually adulterants that kill people [because that's how you make heroin cheaper]) and none of the things that led the person to it (unless it's that evil gateway 'drug' cannabis).
I'm very interested in hearing what you would like to alter about the FDA? As well as what your experience with the FDA is?
Of course the drugs the government regulate kill more people than the ones they don't. The drugs the government regulate happen to be regulated because they are dangerous and they are only approved in the first place because they are to be used for severe illness which would, untreated, be more dangerous than the drugs.
Equating recreational cannabis-use to opioids is stupid as one is used recreationally whilst the other is being used to treat a disease is on the class A narcotics list and thus under strict surveillance. Whilst THC in a pill might be useful in future pain treatment (the literature could be better in that area), smoking/vaping marijuana will never be as it is a shitty way to introduce drugs to the body.
Good lord.
Yeah, how dare I ask for you to clarify your initially unsubstantiated wild claims... Stuff the attitude.
On June 12 2015 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I suppose I would start with this...
In April 2005, the FDA issued a statement asserting that cannabis had no medical value and should not be accepted as a medicine, despite a great deal of research suggesting the opposite.
That's clearly corruption or insatiable ignorance.
Source? Every single official statement I have been able to find by the FDA states something along the lines of:
"HHS and FDA recognize the need for objective evaluations of the potential merits of cannabinoids for medical uses. If the scientific community discovers a positive benefit, HHS also recognizes the need to stimulate development of alternative, safer dosage forms." (Source)
That was from 2004. I would be more than a little surprised if they had less than a year following that made such an adamant statement as the one you linked. Knowing the FDA's usually wording they would have at least tossed a "currently established" in there.
Of course the drugs the government regulate kill more people than the ones they don't. The drugs the government regulate happen to be regulated because they are dangerous and they are only approved in the first place because they are to be used for severe illness which would, untreated, be more dangerous than the drugs.
That's total bs. The ones they don't, like heroin, meth, and cocaine are the "dangerous hard drugs" people are generally talking about. Besides the fact that 2 are still currently marketed and sold by big pharma (desoxyn, morphine,etc...) they still kill less people than prescription medication OD's.
As for 'would be more serious if left untreated' how in the world can you think that?
Just look at something like Restless leg syndrome... Xanax and sinemet are so far from safer than just dealing with RLS it's ridiculous people would even think that.
Sinemet can turn you into a compulsive gambler, and it might even make you sleep drive to the casino to do it....
Sounds like you know nothing about medical cannabis and the opiate epidemic in our military.
I'm currently writing a PhD on the somatic consequences of the opioid use - I have received a fair amount of my funding EXACTLY because of the opioid "epidemic". As you already know I have had multiple research stays at top 10 medical centers in the US studying pain.
My statement is 100% true - it is in fact a requirement to achieve FDA approval that the benefits of a drug outweighs the adverse effects. A high-profile recent example of a drug that has previously failed on exactly criteria is Flibanserin aka viagra for women.
For that reason Morphine would NEVER have been approved for recreational use. If we were to decriminalize hard drugs like heroin/meth/cocaine it would be like approving their use for recreational use. If you want to argue that we should simply legalize them on the same level as Morphine, then well - we partly already have as you yourself point out - but they would still require a prescription and thus their current recreational use would remain illegal. Thus it is a faulty line of argumentation. That more people die of prescription opioids than other, illicit, drugs doesn't disprove the usefulness of opioids and the vast majority of those who are prescribed opioids desperately need them (and cannabis has shown inferiority in clinical trials).
Now, on to your your example of RLS which should supposedly disprove me:
1) Do you have any clue about how it is to live with RLS? It is life-shattering. To suggest people simply "deal with it" is ignorant beyond belief - it's like asking a severely depressed person to just "walk it off". It is true that some achieve satisfactory results without medication, however for those who don't, it isn't something "they can simply deal with". 2) Xanax and Sinemet are both off-label when used for RLS. 3) The side-effects you listed occur in less than 1 in 1000 treated... Probably a lot less dangerous than the number who considers suicide for untreated RLS.
I've personally spoken with vets from Vietnam to Iraq and the ones who were injured to the point they were being fed opiates all came to cannabis because they wanted their lives back. Opiates were destroying their livers, killed their sex drive, often led to depression and hopelessness about being addicted and a lot more problems. They have found that CBD's are actually quite helpful for the pain without much negative side effects (even if they still have to take some opiates).
Good on you - I have also talked with plenty of Vets who wouldn't be able to get through their day if not for opioids to quell their pain. I'm also fairly certain I never said cannabis was useless in pain treatment, so I would appreciate it if you for once could refrain from strawmanning me like you always do.
The propaganda is strong...
What have I posted that could even remotely closely be qualified as propaganda? You are the one posting analogies and shitty youtube videos.
Deep, my own mother died of cancer and I wished people back then were more open minded (before decriminalization) because I know how much the chemo affected her.
It doesn't work for everyone but it takes some proud ignorance and/or wicked vitriol to deny cannabis as an option for dealing with chemo's side effects.
Which is why you can get cannabinoids in pill-form which have been given FDA-approval for EXACTLY that purpose. Smoking marijuana has proven slightly more effective, but then there is the issue of smoking causing cancer (yes, that also goes for vaping but to a lesser degree).
EDIT: All this is discussion that are either only peripherally relevant to the thread or is discussion we have all had before. I'm more interested in what you would actually like to happen by decriminalizing all drugs? OTC sales of meth?
The legal-political war on drugs is an abysmal failure: It violates the right of adults to legally buy, sell, or consume any substance(s) they choose, while failing—for necessary and predictable reasons—to control drug trafficking. Legalizing drugs both protects the right of adult citizens in a free society to legally choose which substances they will or will not ingest and, with the failed anti-drug war repudiated, leaves open the possibility of a vastly more effective effort: A moral-philosophic-educational campaign, exhorting each individual to recognize both that his life belongs to him—and the healthy, value-laden, joy-inducing possibilities his life holds out for him. The legalization of drugs is an integral aspect of an intensified, significantly more effective war on drugs.
How is it that prohibition has lasted this long, and with such little resistance? Who decides who puts what in their body? Who should make that decision?
"The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
Both the US and EU have regulatory bodies who decide what kind of drugs (medicinal) they are allowed to "put in their bodies", largely because the governments of both entities want to protect their citizens from the more nasty side effects of taking dangerous drugs, such as death and mental or physical complications. I assume Canada has a similar regulatory body as well.
But of course, feel free to abolish that regulatory body. Of course that would mean that people become 100% responsible for whatever they stuff into their mouths, and cannot go complain to the state when it would appear that certain drugs cause some undesired side-effects. Treatment of drug abuse, addiction or of those side-effects will of course not be covered by insurance because the individual knew what he was getting into.
As much as the war of drugs is an abject failure, people who use drugs end up being abject failures as well. There's a reason why drugs are prohibited in most societies.
Practically everyone uses drugs eventually.
I'm not for abolishing the FDA but they could certainly use an overhaul. Cannabis is the most obvious example of what's screwy, but this idea of keeping people safe is kind of hogwash.
The drugs the government regulates kill more people than the ones they don't.
Denying cannabis to veterans is probably the single most obvious case of the government pushing people towards addiction to more dangerous and addictive (and coincidentally legally profitable) drugs (opiates) directly in violation of the concept that they are trying to keep people safe.
Then when people find out crappy heroin is cheaper, everyone wants to blame heroin (even though it's usually adulterants that kill people [because that's how you make heroin cheaper]) and none of the things that led the person to it (unless it's that evil gateway 'drug' cannabis).
I'm very interested in hearing what you would like to alter about the FDA? As well as what your experience with the FDA is?
Of course the drugs the government regulate kill more people than the ones they don't. The drugs the government regulate happen to be regulated because they are dangerous and they are only approved in the first place because they are to be used for severe illness which would, untreated, be more dangerous than the drugs.
Equating recreational cannabis-use to opioids is stupid as one is used recreationally whilst the other is being used to treat a disease is on the class A narcotics list and thus under strict surveillance. Whilst THC in a pill might be useful in future pain treatment (the literature could be better in that area), smoking/vaping marijuana will never be as it is a shitty way to introduce drugs to the body.
Good lord.
Yeah, how dare I ask for you to clarify your initially unsubstantiated wild claims... Stuff the attitude.
On June 12 2015 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I suppose I would start with this...
In April 2005, the FDA issued a statement asserting that cannabis had no medical value and should not be accepted as a medicine, despite a great deal of research suggesting the opposite.
That's clearly corruption or insatiable ignorance.
Source? Every single official statement I have been able to find by the FDA states something along the lines of:
"HHS and FDA recognize the need for objective evaluations of the potential merits of cannabinoids for medical uses. If the scientific community discovers a positive benefit, HHS also recognizes the need to stimulate development of alternative, safer dosage forms." (Source)
That was from 2004. I would be more than a little surprised if they had less than a year following that made such an adamant statement as the one you linked. Knowing the FDA's usually wording they would have at least tossed a "currently established" in there.
Of course the drugs the government regulate kill more people than the ones they don't. The drugs the government regulate happen to be regulated because they are dangerous and they are only approved in the first place because they are to be used for severe illness which would, untreated, be more dangerous than the drugs.
That's total bs. The ones they don't, like heroin, meth, and cocaine are the "dangerous hard drugs" people are generally talking about. Besides the fact that 2 are still currently marketed and sold by big pharma (desoxyn, morphine,etc...) they still kill less people than prescription medication OD's.
As for 'would be more serious if left untreated' how in the world can you think that?
Just look at something like Restless leg syndrome... Xanax and sinemet are so far from safer than just dealing with RLS it's ridiculous people would even think that.
Sinemet can turn you into a compulsive gambler, and it might even make you sleep drive to the casino to do it....
Sounds like you know nothing about medical cannabis and the opiate epidemic in our military.
I'm currently writing a PhD on the somatic consequences of the opioid use - I have received a fair amount of my funding EXACTLY because of the opioid "epidemic". As you already know I have had multiple research stays at top 10 medical centers in the US studying pain.
My statement is 100% true - it is in fact a requirement to achieve FDA approval that the benefits of a drug outweighs the adverse effects. A high-profile recent example of a drug that has previously failed on exactly criteria is Flibanserin aka viagra for women.
For that reason Morphine would NEVER have been approved for recreational use. If we were to decriminalize hard drugs like heroin/meth/cocaine it would be like approving their use for recreational use. If you want to argue that we should simply legalize them on the same level as Morphine, then well - we partly already have as you yourself point out - but they would still require a prescription and thus their current recreational use would remain illegal. Thus it is a faulty line of argumentation. That more people die of prescription opioids than other, illicit, drugs doesn't disprove the usefulness of opioids and the vast majority of those who are prescribed opioids desperately need them (and cannabis has shown inferiority in clinical trials).
Now, on to your your example of RLS which should supposedly disprove me:
1) Do you have any clue about how it is to live with RLS? It is life-shattering. To suggest people simply "deal with it" is ignorant beyond belief - it's like asking a severely depressed person to just "walk it off". It is true that some achieve satisfactory results without medication, however for those who don't, it isn't something "they can simply deal with". 2) Xanax and Sinemet are both off-label when used for RLS. 3) The side-effects you listed occur in less than 1 in 1000 treated... Probably a lot less dangerous than the number who considers suicide for untreated RLS.
I've personally spoken with vets from Vietnam to Iraq and the ones who were injured to the point they were being fed opiates all came to cannabis because they wanted their lives back. Opiates were destroying their livers, killed their sex drive, often led to depression and hopelessness about being addicted and a lot more problems. They have found that CBD's are actually quite helpful for the pain without much negative side effects (even if they still have to take some opiates).
Good on you - I have also talked with plenty of Vets who wouldn't be able to get through their day if not for opioids to quell their pain. I'm also fairly certain I never said cannabis was useless in pain treatment, so I would appreciate it if you for once could refrain from strawmanning me like you always do.
Deep, my own mother died of cancer and I wished people back then were more open minded (before decriminalization) because I know how much the chemo affected her.
It doesn't work for everyone but it takes some proud ignorance and/or wicked vitriol to deny cannabis as an option for dealing with chemo's side effects.
Which is why you can get cannabinoids in pill-form which have been given FDA-approval for EXACTLY that purpose. Smoking marijuana has proven slightly more effective, but then there is the issue of smoking causing cancer (yes, that also goes for vaping but to a lesser degree).
EDIT: All this is discussion that are either only peripherally relevant to the thread or is discussion we have all had before. I'm more interested in what you would actually like to happen by decriminalizing all drugs? OTC sales of meth?
Decriminalization to me would entail removing draconian drug laws. Testing positive for cannabis wouldn't result in destroying plea deals and end up putting otherwise functional people in prison for something they did in their past. Frankly when it comes to 'hard drugs' like meth, heroine, and cocaine, I personally think it would be far more effective to treat it like tobacco. Make them spend more on treatment and keep them from commercializing their product.
It would essentially be using the hundreds of billions of dollars generated by drug consumption for treatment as opposed to the practically 0 money and assets seized currently used to actually solve the problem.
As use goes down so do profits, so do expenses, until we reach a homeostasis of users (eliminating recreational drug use is impossible).
Considering the current status one could put as many restrictions as one wants on access (special facilities, special locations, special classes and tests one has to take, etc...)
It's hard to assess all of the benefits and consequences, particularly in relation to how American drug use is funding Central and South American drug lords and dictators.
The bottom line is what we have now is shit and needs to be changed. How it should be changed is a reasonable place to debate but whether it should be changed is not really a point of debate.
TLDR: People are going to use drugs even if you threaten them with death for being caught so trying to stop use is a futile effort. Might as well not give the money to foreign nations who have 0 interest in preventing addiction and the related dangers. Makes more sense to sell it ourselves and make the money go towards paying for treatment/prevention.
On June 11 2015 12:43 AxiomBlurr wrote: Some drugs must remain illegal. There is no safe way to take angel dust, ice or crack, but the sentencing and legal consequences must be changed - this beyond dispute as the current incarceration and measures taken against offenders is helping NOONE!!!!
There's no safe way to drink chlorine or sniff talcum powder. Let's ban those too. This sound deliberately ridiculous in order to evoke a more general point. We choose what we put in our bodies, and that's what we should be encouraging.
Why do drugs, cell phones, and cigarettes exist in prison? There's a 100% prohibition there.
On June 11 2015 16:45 maartendq wrote: "The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
"Truth is sometimes paradoxical. Can you reach the Far East by sailing west? Yes, you can. Is drug legalization a necessary step in a proper war on drugs? Yes, it is". — Andrew Bernstien
EDIT: All this is discussion that are either only peripherally relevant to the thread or is discussion we have all had before. I'm more interested in what you would actually like to happen by decriminalizing all drugs? OTC sales of meth?
I'm pretty happy with the current status of decriminalization here. If it were to become legal, I would be looking up to the a) tax generated through drug sale b)coffee shops c)people growing their own weed
As a liberal and free person you should of course be allowed to do whatever you want in accordance to the golden rule. The state could advise you not to take certain substances and warn you of consequences. But since the state/society sees you as a servant to the state and an asset in which they invested thousands of dollars (education etc.) they want to keep you healthy and productive so they get a good return on their investment.
It's either that or the state really just wants to protect you out of goodwill but fails spectacularly at it like a lawful stupid paladin in RPGs.
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.
The philosophical "Choice what you put into your body" argument against prohibition is really the weakest one of the bunch, and probably only there because americans have this huge boner for anything that sound like FREEDOM!!!!!!.
The much better argument is that prohibition is simply not working at accomplishing any of its goals, while having gigantic unreasonable sideeffects. If you put a lot of people in jail and support criminal cartels that basically destroy mexico, prevent addicted people from getting help and enahnce the spread of HIV & Co due to a difficulty of obtaining clean needles, you should better be able to point out some major positives that justify those necessary evils. Drug prohibition doesn't have any.
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.
The philosophical "Choice what you put into your body" argument against prohibition is really the weakest one of the bunch, and probably only there because americans have this huge boner for anything that sound like FREEDOM!!!!!!.
The much better argument is that prohibition is simply not working at accomplishing any of its goals, while having gigantic unreasonable sideeffects. If you put a lot of people in jail and support criminal cartels that basically destroy mexico, prevent addicted people from getting help and enahnce the spread of HIV & Co due to a difficulty of obtaining clean needles, you should better be able to point out some major positives that justify those necessary evils. Drug prohibition doesn't have any.
It does if you're a dirty cop/agent, corrupt official, part of big pharma, a racist, or part of the prison industrial complex in general.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence those are the main opponents of rational drug laws though. + Show Spoiler +
(I'm not saying every opponent falls in one of those categories)
On June 11 2015 16:45 maartendq wrote: "The war on drugs has failed, so we should just do the polar opposite and allow people to freely use them." How did that guy even get his PHD with simplistic thinking like that?
"Truth is sometimes paradoxical. Can you reach the Far East by sailing west? Yes, you can. Is drug legalization a necessary step in a proper war on drugs? Yes, it is". — Andrew Bernstien
Actually, legalising drugs is just doing the polar opposite of what you were doing before because it didn't work. There's an enormous grey zone between "war" and "legalisation", but that would require actually putting in some thought.
Equally short-sighted (and downright stupid) would be that because communism didn't work in Eastern Europe before 1989 those countries should instead opt for an objectivist regime.
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.
The philosophical "Choice what you put into your body" argument against prohibition is really the weakest one of the bunch, and probably only there because americans have this huge boner for anything that sound like FREEDOM!!!!!!.
The much better argument is that prohibition is simply not working at accomplishing any of its goals, while having gigantic unreasonable sideeffects. If you put a lot of people in jail and support criminal cartels that basically destroy mexico, prevent addicted people from getting help and enahnce the spread of HIV & Co due to a difficulty of obtaining clean needles, you should better be able to point out some major positives that justify those necessary evils. Drug prohibition doesn't have any.
It does if you're a dirty cop/agent, corrupt official, part of big pharma, a racist, or part of the prison industrial complex in general.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence those are the main opponents of rational drug laws though. + Show Spoiler +
(I'm not saying every opponent falls in one of those categories)
How does Big Pharma as a group gain from the prohibition in your eyes? If recreational drug use was made legal wouldn't that open an entire new market for them? Additionally the new psychotic events that will invariably follow will only increase the sales of their blockbuster antipsychotics. Or is it the usual (faulty) pothead argument of smoked cannabis replacing all current pain treatment to such a degree that big pharma would no longer have any market (nevermind that the vast majority of opioid-patents have expired)?
On June 11 2015 22:19 Scorch wrote: Some benefits of legalizing drugs: - lower cost for law enforcement, court proceedings and prisons - tax revenue from legally sold drugs, new legal jobs and businesses in that business area - controlled quality of drugs, lower health risks - youth protection when buying drugs in an ordinary shop or pharmacy instead of a criminal dealer - takes revenue away from dealers, mafia, gangs and drug cartels, resulting in the whole sector shrinking and fewer related crimes - cheaper drugs, resulting in less crime associated with obtaining drugs
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.
The philosophical "Choice what you put into your body" argument against prohibition is really the weakest one of the bunch, and probably only there because americans have this huge boner for anything that sound like FREEDOM!!!!!!.
The much better argument is that prohibition is simply not working at accomplishing any of its goals, while having gigantic unreasonable sideeffects. If you put a lot of people in jail and support criminal cartels that basically destroy mexico, prevent addicted people from getting help and enahnce the spread of HIV & Co due to a difficulty of obtaining clean needles, you should better be able to point out some major positives that justify those necessary evils. Drug prohibition doesn't have any.
It does if you're a dirty cop/agent, corrupt official, part of big pharma, a racist, or part of the prison industrial complex in general.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence those are the main opponents of rational drug laws though. + Show Spoiler +
(I'm not saying every opponent falls in one of those categories)
How does Big Pharma as a group gain from the prohibition in your eyes? If recreational drug use was made legal wouldn't that open an entire new market for them? Additionally the new psychotic events that will invariably follow will only increase the sales of their blockbuster antipsychotics. Or is it the usual (faulty) pothead argument of smoked cannabis replacing all current pain treatment to such a degree that big pharma would no longer have any market (nevermind that the vast majority of opioid-patents have expired)?
Big pharma benefits from places like "candy land" and other facilities that push their drugs harder than the best street pushers. They also benefit from the distraction and distinction people make between drugs like heroin and morphine.
Your pushing propaganda when you say decriminalization will automatically lead to increased consumption and related illnesses. That just isn't true.
"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." - National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
Reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine." - Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford.
"There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine)." - C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399.
"Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people. The data show no evidence of any increase, relative to the control states, in the proportion of the age group who ever tried marijuana. In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization." - L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Although Pharma does benefit from selling opiates (even if they share profits with generics) that wasn't the benefits I had in mind. More about how they went more than a decade without DEA scrutiny while addiction and related illnesses rocketed past drugs like heroin or cocaine.
Would you have told that Harvard doctor that he couldn't give his kid a joint for chemo without going to jail?
Just a reminder, the event is this Thursday at the University of Toronto. LINK
"Making men's values--including toxic drugs--illegal, does not alter their values. It merely alters the methods by which they attain those values." — Andrew Bernstein - Capitalist Solutions
On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
decriminizalize just means that possession is legal. If you got pulled over for somenthing and had a bag on you but weren't using while driving, you'd walk away without a ticket for possession. It doesn't make dealing, manufacturing, etc legal. Hitting a crack pipe on the corner would still be illegal, so would driving under the influence.
Throwing users in jail for possession does nothing to address the root of the problem. If anything, it makes it far worse. It's a far more efficent use of money and combating the problem by legalizing possession, and using money saved from law enforcement to be put to use for publically funded rehab for those addicts, clean needle exchanges, etc. People already continue to use despite attempts to legislate morality. The only people the current system is working for are for profit prisons.
Weed should just be 100% legal in all forms. It's fairly harmless, less so than legal stuff like cigs and booze. Whatever minor health implications it has are farrrr outweighed by the positives of completely legalizing. It will take a huge chunk of money off the streets and put it into local businesses, and will greatly diminish the black market criminal element for that stuff. That means less money pissed away on fighting that crime. The tax windfall from Colorado has been massive, and it's created a whole new industry and new jobs. And that would theoretically open up federal legalization of hemp, which has a lot of non-rec uses that are currently banned by the feds.
On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
decriminizalize just means that possession is legal. If you got pulled over for somenthing and had a bag on you but weren't using while driving, you'd walk away without a ticket for possession. It doesn't make dealing, manufacturing, etc legal. Hitting a crack pipe on the corner would still be illegal, so would driving under the influence.
Throwing users in jail for possession does nothing to address the root of the problem. If anything, it makes it far worse. It's a far more efficent use of money and combating the problem by legalizing possession, and using money saved from law enforcement to be put to use for publically funded rehab for those addicts, clean needle exchanges, etc. People already continue to use despite attempts to legislate morality. The only people the current system is working for are for profit prisons.
Weed should just be 100% legal in all forms. It's fairly harmless, less so than legal stuff like cigs and booze. Whatever minor health implications it has are farrrr outweighed by the positives of completely legalizing. It will take a huge chunk of money off the streets and put it into local businesses, and will greatly diminish the black market criminal element for that stuff. That means less money pissed away on fighting that crime. The tax windfall from Colorado has been massive, and it's created a whole new industry and new jobs. And that would theoretically open up federal legalization of hemp, which has a lot of non-rec uses that are currently banned by the feds.
I would argue it has been great for Colorado, but I'm a casual recreational user myself (1 or 2 times a week) so take that for what it's worth. So far in FY2015 we have raked in almost $100 million in taxes associated with marijuana sales, so it is hard to argue with the financial benefit. Speaking from personal experience, it is much nicer to go to a store rather than some shady guy's house, and I think legalization actually decreases the "gateway drug" effect. The "gateway" concept was never about cannabis itself, but the process of actually going to a dealer. You just want some weed, but you go to this guy's house and he wants to smoke with you and ends up offering you all kinds of shit you don't want. I would rather (and do) pay a little bit more to go to an actual store where the people are friendly and helpful, I can get my stuff and go home.
There are legitimate complaints about the smell in public places (although it is illegal to smoke in public places) and that "too many people are smoking now" but I think that is partly a novelty issue. The novelty will wear off and the market will stabilize, and we will continue to have a steady stream of tax revenue from something that was illegal two years ago.
I don't agree with legalizing all drugs, because I don't think condoning recreational use of drugs like heroin and meth is responsible, but people should not be going to jail for simple possession of any drug. Implement education programs to teach people the possible consequences, and try to get them help should they become addicted. Decriminalization all around is the way to go, IMO.
In Portugal i've been caught with "cannabis" two times and they let me go and just took the drugs or destroyed it.
One of those times we even asked to keep a bit because it was so good and they lets us grab a bit of weed while they were scaterring it in the wind ... :D
Basicly if you are not a known dealer, don't have a big quantity and don't have lots of money(that usually is used to say you are a dealer), they will probably take your drugs and let you go without anything.
If you have a bigger quantity like lets say 25g of hash but no money or criminal record you can go to court and have to do some community service but you won't get a criminal record. Usually this won't happen if you are a low profile guy, say you are sorry and you are not a knowed thug.
Harder drugs you will never be a criminal for using or if you are caught with 1 or 2g's of cocaine or heroin, ff course bigger quantities of harder drugs will get you in big trouble.
Overall in Portugal cops don't really care unless you are dealing and making money
On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
decriminizalize just means that possession is legal. If you got pulled over for somenthing and had a bag on you but weren't using while driving, you'd walk away without a ticket for possession. It doesn't make dealing, manufacturing, etc legal. Hitting a crack pipe on the corner would still be illegal, so would driving under the influence.
Throwing users in jail for possession does nothing to address the root of the problem. If anything, it makes it far worse. It's a far more efficent use of money and combating the problem by legalizing possession, and using money saved from law enforcement to be put to use for publically funded rehab for those addicts, clean needle exchanges, etc. People already continue to use despite attempts to legislate morality. The only people the current system is working for are for profit prisons.
Weed should just be 100% legal in all forms. It's fairly harmless, less so than legal stuff like cigs and booze. Whatever minor health implications it has are farrrr outweighed by the positives of completely legalizing. It will take a huge chunk of money off the streets and put it into local businesses, and will greatly diminish the black market criminal element for that stuff. That means less money pissed away on fighting that crime. The tax windfall from Colorado has been massive, and it's created a whole new industry and new jobs. And that would theoretically open up federal legalization of hemp, which has a lot of non-rec uses that are currently banned by the feds.
I would argue it has been great for Colorado, but I'm a casual recreational user myself (1 or 2 times a week) so take that for what it's worth. So far in FY2015 we have raked in almost $100 million in taxes associated with marijuana sales, so it is hard to argue with the financial benefit. Speaking from personal experience, it is much nicer to go to a store rather than some shady guy's house, and I think legalization actually decreases the "gateway drug" effect. The "gateway" concept was never about cannabis itself, but the process of actually going to a dealer. You just want some weed, but you go to this guy's house and he wants to smoke with you and ends up offering you all kinds of shit you don't want. I would rather (and do) pay a little bit more to go to an actual store where the people are friendly and helpful, I can get my stuff and go home.
There are legitimate complaints about the smell in public places (although it is illegal to smoke in public places) and that "too many people are smoking now" but I think that is partly a novelty issue. The novelty will wear off and the market will stabilize, and we will continue to have a steady stream of tax revenue from something that was illegal two years ago.
I don't agree with legalizing all drugs, because I don't think condoning recreational use of drugs like heroin and meth is responsible, but people should not be going to jail for simple possession of any drug. Implement education programs to teach people the possible consequences, and try to get them help should they become addicted. Decriminalization all around is the way to go, IMO.
Yeah I agree about decriminalizing simply because it has far more benefits to the public. Weed probably happens in 10-15 years imo. It has way too much immediate financial potential for it not to happen. Decriminalization of the other stuff I don't know if it will. There's no immediate financial motive for a politician.
On June 12 2015 00:51 Sermokala wrote: I just think that if you decriminalize drugs that's just going to open the door for big pharma companies to create ultra high grade designer drugs legally.
Granted some drugs should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco but I've never seen a good argument for where to draw the line once you open that pandoras box.
decriminizalize just means that possession is legal. If you got pulled over for somenthing and had a bag on you but weren't using while driving, you'd walk away without a ticket for possession. It doesn't make dealing, manufacturing, etc legal. Hitting a crack pipe on the corner would still be illegal, so would driving under the influence.
Throwing users in jail for possession does nothing to address the root of the problem. If anything, it makes it far worse. It's a far more efficent use of money and combating the problem by legalizing possession, and using money saved from law enforcement to be put to use for publically funded rehab for those addicts, clean needle exchanges, etc. People already continue to use despite attempts to legislate morality. The only people the current system is working for are for profit prisons.
Weed should just be 100% legal in all forms. It's fairly harmless, less so than legal stuff like cigs and booze. Whatever minor health implications it has are farrrr outweighed by the positives of completely legalizing. It will take a huge chunk of money off the streets and put it into local businesses, and will greatly diminish the black market criminal element for that stuff. That means less money pissed away on fighting that crime. The tax windfall from Colorado has been massive, and it's created a whole new industry and new jobs. And that would theoretically open up federal legalization of hemp, which has a lot of non-rec uses that are currently banned by the feds.
I would argue it has been great for Colorado, but I'm a casual recreational user myself (1 or 2 times a week) so take that for what it's worth. So far in FY2015 we have raked in almost $100 million in taxes associated with marijuana sales, so it is hard to argue with the financial benefit. Speaking from personal experience, it is much nicer to go to a store rather than some shady guy's house, and I think legalization actually decreases the "gateway drug" effect. The "gateway" concept was never about cannabis itself, but the process of actually going to a dealer. You just want some weed, but you go to this guy's house and he wants to smoke with you and ends up offering you all kinds of shit you don't want. I would rather (and do) pay a little bit more to go to an actual store where the people are friendly and helpful, I can get my stuff and go home.
There are legitimate complaints about the smell in public places (although it is illegal to smoke in public places) and that "too many people are smoking now" but I think that is partly a novelty issue. The novelty will wear off and the market will stabilize, and we will continue to have a steady stream of tax revenue from something that was illegal two years ago.
I don't agree with legalizing all drugs, because I don't think condoning recreational use of drugs like heroin and meth is responsible, but people should not be going to jail for simple possession of any drug. Implement education programs to teach people the possible consequences, and try to get them help should they become addicted. Decriminalization all around is the way to go, IMO.
Yeah I agree about decriminalizing simply because it has far more benefits to the public. Weed probably happens in 10-15 years imo. It has way too much immediate financial potential for it not to happen. Decriminalization of the other stuff I don't know if it will. There's no immediate financial motive for a politician.
Cannabis will probably come off of schedule 1 before the end of the Obama administration. It should be medically legal in a majority of states too. Even Bush thinks it should be a 'states rights' issue. So realistically it should get federally decriminalized within the next 4 years regardless of who wins.
As someone who has recently been literally driven insane by weed i have to say that ending prohibition is the only way forward. The way cannabis is grown right now is basically a case of maximising THC at all costs. This means that various anti-psychotic chemicals normally contained within weed are diminished, leading to a highly dangerous product. I have first hand experience of some of the effects and it has had a permanent effect on my mind.
I am not anti-weed at all, but it needs to be regulated properly or cases of psychosis and related conditions will grow exponentially IMO.
"firsthand experience" and pharmacological specifics don't mix dawg. I mean, this may sound harsh, but think on what sort of value a 3rd party should place on the medical or medicinal opinion of someone who claims to have been driven insane.
I couldn't make it to the talk, had to work overtime. But I heard good things from friends that did. There will be a video posted sometime in the future.