War on Drugs(tm) a failure
Iman L Crawford
I think I've almost got one guy here convinced it's been a waste of time
and money.
--
Iman
--
borland.public.off-topic exists as a runoff for unwanted posts in the
technical groups. Enforcement of rules is deliberately minimal but
Borland reserves the right to cancel posts at any time, for any
reason, without notice.
Eric H. Johnson
> http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-04.html
>
> I think I've almost got one guy here convinced it's been a waste of
> time and money.
While others of us never needed any convincing.
Of course that isn't even half the drug problem, the bigger problem is with
the ones that are entirely legal. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26523-2004Dec1.html
<quote>
In a sharp pivot, many medical authorities are questioning the fundamental
safety guarantees for American drugs, threatening to dull the national
appetite that has demanded and devoured pharmaceuticals at a faster clip for
nearly a generation.
</quote>
and
<quote>
Dr. Jerry Avorn, a Harvard Medical School expert who wrote a book on the
drug industry, says recent revelations about the FDA suggest "a culture of
denial" about dangerous side effects, especially once a drug is on the
market. Some authorities contend that FDA's post-marketing safety monitors
need more independence from the unit that evaluates drugs for approval.
</quote>
IOW, government intervention on both legal and currently illegal drugs
appears to be a failure.
Regards,
Eric
--
If you destroy a free market, you create a black market.
-- Sir Winston Churchill
Iman L Crawford
@newsgroups.borland.com:
> IOW, government intervention on both legal and currently illegal drugs
> appears to be a failure.
I'm sure all the pharmecuticals want to get rid of the FDA, especially with
BushCo wanting to limit liability lawsuits. Man what a money bonanza that
would be. You could legally kill people at 250k a pop.
--
Iman
Andreas Prucha
news:Xns95B4996A8...@207.105.83.66:
> "Eric H. Johnson" <ejohnson_at_aaainc.com> wrote in news:41b0cde4$1
> @newsgroups.borland.com:
>> IOW, government intervention on both legal and currently illegal
>> drugs appears to be a failure.
>
> I'm sure all the pharmecuticals want to get rid of the FDA, especially
> with BushCo wanting to limit liability lawsuits. Man what a money
> bonanza that would be. You could legally kill people at 250k a pop.
Yep. Something Eric obviously does not realize is that in most cases
regulations exist because the free industry failed in the past.
Andreas Prucha
><quote>
> Dr. Jerry Avorn, a Harvard Medical School expert who wrote a book on
> the drug industry, says recent revelations about the FDA suggest "a
> culture of denial" about dangerous side effects, especially once a
> drug is on the market. Some authorities contend that FDA's
> post-marketing safety monitors need more independence from the unit
> that evaluates drugs for approval.
></quote>
>
> IOW, government intervention on both legal and currently illegal drugs
> appears to be a failure.
And if they intervented you would complain about the government, too.
Eric H. Johnson
> I'm sure all the pharmecuticals want to get rid of the FDA,
> especially with BushCo wanting to limit liability lawsuits. Man what
> a money bonanza that would be. You could legally kill people at 250k
> a pop.
If anything they want to get rid of the trial lawyers, the FDA is their
friend. Because all the FDA really does is certify that the drug companies
are observing the practices and procedures the companies themselves put in
place. The FDA cannot tell them they are doing something wrong or make them
do things differently because it then exposes the FDA to liability.
Further, all the expense of implementing this, since it applies to all
pharmaceutical companies, basically acts as a barrier to entry for new
competition because in increases the cost of entry.
Regards,
Eric
--
The weakling and the coward cannot be saved by honesty alone; but without
honesty, the brave and able man is merely a civic wild beast who should be
hunted down by every lover of righteousness.
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Craig Leidy
I'm getting a wierd flashback like I read
this exact same thread 3 years ago.
So I'll say the same thing again.
If the US Government Drug Czar...
(whoever that is today) had a button
on his desk, and all he had to do to
eradicate drugs is push the button...
He wouldn't push it!
Illegal drugs are big business on both
sides of the law ($60 billion worth!).
Does anyone want to erase 60 bill
worth of business?
Craig.
Andreas Prucha
> If anything they want to get rid of the trial lawyers, the FDA is
> their friend. Because all the FDA really does is certify that the drug
> companies are observing the practices and procedures the companies
> themselves put in place. The FDA cannot tell them they are doing
> something wrong or make them do things differently because it then
> exposes the FDA to liability.
I doubt that this is correct. Without proper clinical trial, a drug will
certainly not get approval.
> Further, all the expense of implementing this, since it applies to all
> pharmaceutical companies, basically acts as a barrier to entry for new
> competition because in increases the cost of entry.
Interesting. So you talk about expenses? You think that it would be less
expensive without these regulations? Would you like to see small companies
bringing drugs on the market without clinical trials?
Jim McKay
>Interesting. So you talk about expenses? You think that it would be
>less expensive without these regulations? Would you like to see small
>companies bringing drugs on the market without clinical trials?
many such small companies in Oakland:
meth, crack, acid...
--
Regards:
Jim McKay
"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."
-- Steven Wright
Posted with XanaNews: Ver: 1.16.3.1
Poet Fury
> "Eric H. Johnson" <ejohnson_at_aaainc.com> wrote in
> news:41b0f079$1...@newsgroups.borland.com:
>
>> If anything they want to get rid of the trial lawyers, the FDA is
>> their friend. Because all the FDA really does is certify that the drug
>> companies are observing the practices and procedures the companies
>> themselves put in place. The FDA cannot tell them they are doing
>> something wrong or make them do things differently because it then
>> exposes the FDA to liability.
>
> I doubt that this is correct. Without proper clinical trial, a drug will
> certainly not get approval.
Who does the trial? The companies. Who sets the parameters for the trial?
The companies. Who writes up the results? The companies.
What does the FDA do? Sign here, please.
Russian Roulette — for when you really haven’t made up your mind.
Keith
Iman L Crawford wrote:
> http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-04.html
>
> I think I've almost got one guy here convinced it's been a waste of time
> and money.
I don't consider War on Drugs(tm) a failure...
Consider these facts:
1) Successfully expanded both local, state and federal governmental
influence
2) Successfully squandered millions of taxpayer dollars
3) Successfully filled state and federal prisons with tens of thousands of
inmates
4) Successfully increased the number of senseless murders of individuals
engaged in deemed-unlawful activities
5) Successfully undermined the idea of "free and independent people"
Willem van Rumpt
>
> Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
>
Hmmm, a tempting idea. At least one that hasn't been tried yet.
--
Willem van Rumpt
Matt Jacobs
>http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-04.html
>
>I think I've almost got one guy here convinced it's been a waste of time
>and money.
As opposed to doing nothing, I think some level of a war on drugs in
required.
Matt Jacobs
>4) Successfully increased the number of senseless murders of individuals
>engaged in deemed-unlawful activities
If you mean drug gangs fighting among themselves, you can hardly blame
that on the war on drugs. Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
Matt Jacobs
>Matt Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
>>
>
>Hmmm, a tempting idea. At least one that hasn't been tried yet.
Many drugs that were once legal in the US were outlawed early in the
20th century because they destroyed lives. Opium and cocaine come to
mine. So yes, it has been tried.
Willem van Rumpt
>
> Many drugs that were once legal in the US were outlawed early in the
> 20th century because they destroyed lives. Opium and cocaine come to
> mine. So yes, it has been tried.
>
So why is alcohol legal? Why is smoking legal?
Equally destructive and addictive as all other harddrugs, yet legal.
You can get yourself a prescription allowing you to swallow Valium,
Librium, Prozac and all it's modern variants by the truckload, why's
that legal?
(for the record: I smoke, drink alcohol, but don't swallow any
tranquilizers or barbituates ;) )
--
Willem van Rumpt
Loren Pechtel
>Willem van Rumpt <no.sli...@no.thelandslide.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt Jacobs wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
>>>
>>
>>Hmmm, a tempting idea. At least one that hasn't been tried yet.
>
>Many drugs that were once legal in the US were outlawed early in the
>20th century because they destroyed lives. Opium and cocaine come to
>mine. So yes, it has been tried.
They were outlawed because they were the drug of choice of
minorities, not of the white man.
If harm is the reason for the laws then start with the #1
killer: Tobacco. We've already tried banning the #2 killer and we
decided that it was a bad idea.
Loren Pechtel
>Keith <kdo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>4) Successfully increased the number of senseless murders of individuals
>>engaged in deemed-unlawful activities
>
>If you mean drug gangs fighting among themselves, you can hardly blame
>that on the war on drugs. Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
1) The drugs don't cause anywhere near the harm the drug war does.
2) Even if you don't want full legalization, how about what Britian
*USED* to do: For the addictive ones, they were illegal but addiction
was a valid reason to get a prescription. It worked *FAR* better than
the current system.
Loren Pechtel
<ilcrawford.at.hotmail.dot.com> wrote:
>http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-04.html
>
>I think I've almost got one guy here convinced it's been a waste of time
>and money.
Nah, it's a success.
1) Job security for a lot of cops and prison workers.
2) Ensuring a steady supply of criminals to blame societies ills on.
3) Ensuring an underclass to be used as an example of what happens
when you don't do what you're told to.
Matt Jacobs
>Matt Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> Many drugs that were once legal in the US were outlawed early in the
>> 20th century because they destroyed lives. Opium and cocaine come to
>> mine. So yes, it has been tried.
>>
>
>So why is alcohol legal? Why is smoking legal?
Probably because the effects are more insidious than other drugs and
in the former case, consumption can be moderated to a level that is
not extremely damaging. Perhaps the latter as well (maybe).
>Equally destructive and addictive as all other harddrugs, yet legal.
Yes, but one can moderate consumption and still live a productive
life. I don't know if that is the case with opium and cocaine.
>You can get yourself a prescription allowing you to swallow Valium,
>Librium, Prozac and all it's modern variants by the truckload, why's
>that legal?
Because the medical benefits supposedly outweigh the risks.
>(for the record: I smoke, drink alcohol, but don't swallow any
>tranquilizers or barbituates ;) )
I used to too but saw the light in my early 30's. :-)
Matt Jacobs
>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:07:52 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>Willem van Rumpt <no.sli...@no.thelandslide.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Jacobs wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmm, a tempting idea. At least one that hasn't been tried yet.
>>
>>Many drugs that were once legal in the US were outlawed early in the
>>20th century because they destroyed lives. Opium and cocaine come to
>>mine. So yes, it has been tried.
>
> They were outlawed because they were the drug of choice of
>minorities, not of the white man.
I have heard that too, but those drugs were used by whites in the late
19th century, so I can't say for sure that is the only reason.
> If harm is the reason for the laws then start with the #1
>killer: Tobacco. We've already tried banning the #2 killer and we
>decided that it was a bad idea.
Yes, but tobacco is insidious and one can function in society as a
smoker. You cannot say that is the case for opium addicts.
Matt Jacobs
>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 09:18:14 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>Keith <kdo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>4) Successfully increased the number of senseless murders of individuals
>>>engaged in deemed-unlawful activities
>>
>>If you mean drug gangs fighting among themselves, you can hardly blame
>>that on the war on drugs. Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
>
>1) The drugs don't cause anywhere near the harm the drug war does.
Harm to whom? If you mean gang members who are injured by violence,
tough -- they choose to live that way.
If you mean some stupid kid caught with a bag of weed, then I agree
with you. There should be no criminal penalties for that.
>2) Even if you don't want full legalization, how about what Britian
>*USED* to do: For the addictive ones, they were illegal but addiction
>was a valid reason to get a prescription. It worked *FAR* better than
>the current system.
Probably because some view it as a moral issue and do not believe that
the state should make it possible for one to do damage to himself. Far
better one should quit than continue to use damaging drugs and then
expect taxpayers to support him when his health collapses.
Willem van Rumpt
>
> Probably because the effects are more insidious than other drugs and
> in the former case, consumption can be moderated to a level that is
> not extremely damaging. Perhaps the latter as well (maybe).
> life. I don't know if that is the case with opium and cocaine.
>
Alcoholists are, if I recall correctly, by far the largest group of drug
addicts (at least, here in the Netherlands), so while moderation seems
to work for most people, a (relatively) large group can not. I can't
seem to google up any numbers, perhaps because I still haven't had my
first smoke, but I think the estimate is about 1 out of 10 people having
at least trouble with alcohol
>
> Because the medical benefits supposedly outweigh the risks.
>
I think "supposedly" is the keyword here :)
>
> I used to too but saw the light in my early 30's. :-)
>
Made two halfhearted attempts to quit smoking, but failed miserably.
I needs my smoke!
:)
--
Willem van Rumpt
--
Willem van Rumpt
>
> Probably because some view it as a moral issue and do not believe that
> the state should make it possible for one to do damage to himself. Far
> better one should quit than continue to use damaging drugs and then
> expect taxpayers to support him when his health collapses.
>
While true it's better to quit, the reason for this kind of setup is
much more down to earth:
1)
It prevents them from reverting to criminal activity to get cash to buy
their dope, which is something every carowner is pleased with :)
2)
You can get a good overview of the group of addicts
3)
With the above, you can help them with their addiction, and monitor the
group of addicts (is it growing or not, is treatment helping etc.).
Quite usefull for govermentorganisations to know.
if no treatment helps, then at least 1) will still apply, and at a
minimum of costs.
--
Willem van Rumpt
Andreas Prucha
news:qid4r0tkj957siv87...@4ax.com:
> Probably because some view it as a moral issue and do not believe that
> the state should make it possible for one to do damage to himself. Far
> better one should quit than continue to use damaging drugs and then
> expect taxpayers to support him when his health collapses.
Sure, but the drug itself usually is'nt what causes the big health
problems. Don't get me wrong - they are not really healty, but the drug
itself is a minor problem compared to the health problems caused by the
illegality. One problem is the varying quality. Another problem is that
it's not sure what additinal components were used to expand the drug. And
the environment where and how the drugs are consumed is an additional
problem. IMO these things cause more health problems as the drug itself.
And when they have to see a doc to get the prescription halth monitoring
is easier as if they do not (e.g. because they fear to see a doc because
the doc notice the addiciton). And discussing it with a doc regularry may
also be a way to find a way to quit the drugs.
Other problems are also caused by the illegality only. The illegality of
the drugs makes them extremely expensive which forces addicted people to
commit crimes in order to get the drugs.
To me, the war on drugs looks like a sucessfull strategy to incrase crime
and suffering. --- And to make a few people very rich.
Andreas Prucha
> Yes, but one can moderate consumption and still live a productive
> life. I don't know if that is the case with opium and cocaine.
I think it is. Cocaine seems to be very popular among people in management
jobs.
Andreas Prucha
news:Xns95B67D7...@207.105.83.66:
> Andreas Prucha wrote:
>
>> Cocaine seems to be very popular among people in management
>> jobs.
>
> Hmm. Why do we call them "crackheads" then? <eg>
Hmmm... crack is not much more as a cooked cocaine/sodium mixture <g>
Michael Warner
> 1) Job security for a lot of cops and prison workers.
And aren't prisons a burgeoning private-sector industry there now? It'd
clearly be a direct attack on capitalism to legalize anything.
--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo
Matt Jacobs
>Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote in
>news:h6d4r0lq2mlnpidug...@4ax.com:
>
>> Yes, but one can moderate consumption and still live a productive
>> life. I don't know if that is the case with opium and cocaine.
>
>I think it is. Cocaine seems to be very popular among people in management
>jobs.
No, we just say management is "on crack." That doesn't mean they
really are. <g>
Matt Jacobs
>Matt Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> Probably because the effects are more insidious than other drugs and
>> in the former case, consumption can be moderated to a level that is
>> not extremely damaging. Perhaps the latter as well (maybe).
>> Yes, but one can moderate consumption and still live a productive
>> life. I don't know if that is the case with opium and cocaine.
>>
>
>Alcoholists are, if I recall correctly, by far the largest group of drug
>addicts (at least, here in the Netherlands), so while moderation seems
>to work for most people, a (relatively) large group can not. I can't
>seem to google up any numbers, perhaps because I still haven't had my
>first smoke, but I think the estimate is about 1 out of 10 people having
>at least trouble with alcohol
I'm sure that's true. But, I think it is possible to drink in
moderation and still live a productive life. Some of the harder drugs
are far more additive and dangerous.
>>
>> Because the medical benefits supposedly outweigh the risks.
>>
>
>I think "supposedly" is the keyword here :)
For sure.
>>
>> I used to too but saw the light in my early 30's. :-)
>>
>
>Made two halfhearted attempts to quit smoking, but failed miserably.
>I needs my smoke!
>:)
The patch worked for me, err... I believe the third try. :-)
Matt Jacobs
>Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote in
>news:qid4r0tkj957siv87...@4ax.com:
>
>> Probably because some view it as a moral issue and do not believe that
>> the state should make it possible for one to do damage to himself. Far
>> better one should quit than continue to use damaging drugs and then
>> expect taxpayers to support him when his health collapses.
>
>Sure, but the drug itself usually is'nt what causes the big health
>problems. Don't get me wrong - they are not really healty, but the drug
>itself is a minor problem compared to the health problems caused by the
>illegality. One problem is the varying quality. Another problem is that
>it's not sure what additinal components were used to expand the drug. And
>the environment where and how the drugs are consumed is an additional
>problem. IMO these things cause more health problems as the drug itself.
>And when they have to see a doc to get the prescription halth monitoring
>is easier as if they do not (e.g. because they fear to see a doc because
>the doc notice the addiciton). And discussing it with a doc regularry may
>also be a way to find a way to quit the drugs.
>
>Other problems are also caused by the illegality only. The illegality of
>the drugs makes them extremely expensive which forces addicted people to
>commit crimes in order to get the drugs.
>
>To me, the war on drugs looks like a sucessfull strategy to incrase crime
>and suffering. --- And to make a few people very rich.
You make some good points, but I believe the two most addictive drugs,
heroin and cocaine both have devastating long-term effects, even when
taken in a cleaner fashion, such as via clean needles, etc.
Matt Jacobs
>Matt Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> Probably because some view it as a moral issue and do not believe that
>> the state should make it possible for one to do damage to himself. Far
>> better one should quit than continue to use damaging drugs and then
>> expect taxpayers to support him when his health collapses.
>>
>
>While true it's better to quit, the reason for this kind of setup is
>much more down to earth:
>1)
>It prevents them from reverting to criminal activity to get cash to buy
>their dope, which is something every carowner is pleased with :)
But some do not believe that the state should act as an enabler for
drug addicts.
>2)
>You can get a good overview of the group of addicts
Some, I agree.
>3)
>With the above, you can help them with their addiction, and monitor the
>group of addicts (is it growing or not, is treatment helping etc.).
>Quite usefull for govermentorganisations to know.
But as is normally the case, those who want to quit will quit. Often
adicts do not want to quit so then you have a situation where they are
placed in maintenance mode by the state.
>if no treatment helps, then at least 1) will still apply, and at a
>minimum of costs.
Perhaps. It depends on the drug.
Andreas Prucha
>
> No, we just say management is "on crack." That doesn't mean they
> really are. <g>
They are. Surveys and searches on the toilets of management areas confirm
that. Cocaine is a quite popular drug among the rich and famous.
San Francis Bo
> They are. Surveys and searches on the toilets of management areas confirm
> that. Cocaine is a quite popular drug among the rich and famous.
The deserving <g>
--
Francis
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/central.html
Eric H. Johnson
> And if they intervented you would complain about the government, too.
Huh? I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make. I am absolutely
saying this is another instance where government intervention has been a
total failure.
Regards,
Eric
--
Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things
that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don't
have time for all that ...
-- George Carlin
Eric H. Johnson
> I doubt that this is correct. Without proper clinical trial, a drug
> will certainly not get approval.
Well then you would be wrong. Because effectively all the FDA does is acts
in the same capacity as an auditor. It certifies that the companies did what
they claim they did, at least as far as the records and other paper trial
claim they did. Like an auditor, the are not explicitly looking for fraud,
nor can they certify that no fraud occurred, they are only expected to do
their due diligence if they uncover something that would indicate actions of
a fraudulent nature.
However, unlike private auditors, they have the capacity to fine companies
for failures to comply with their procedures. Which usually happens after
another problem has been uncovered, like the tainted meat incident of a year
or so ago. Once something like that occurs, it is amazing how often they are
then able to find a procedural violation that they did not find in advance,
then using it to justify fining the company in question, above and beyond
the financial loss they have already incurred, and the damage to their
reputation.
Again, the free market is already very good at punishing irresponsible
behavior after the fact. For the FDA to have any added value, it must be
able to find problems before they have negative results.
> Interesting. So you talk about expenses? You think that it would be
> less expensive without these regulations? Would you like to see small
> companies bringing drugs on the market without clinical trials?
Of course it would be less expensive, but no, companies would not be
bringing out drugs without clinical trials or some other means of assuring
buyers of their safety. That was the point of one of the articles I posted
in this thread, that if it hasn't happened already, we are quickly reaching
the point where we don't trust these drugs to be beneficial. Wasn't that the
whole purpose of the FDA? To provide a means by which they can be trusted.
What is the point of the FDA if it fails to achieve its primary objective?
Regards,
Eric
--
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
-- Albert Einstein
Eric H. Johnson
> If you mean drug gangs fighting among themselves, you can hardly blame
> that on the war on drugs. Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
I don't disagree with you on much, but here is one where I do. I definitely
think all drugs should be legal, and none should require a doctor's
authorization to purchase (by an adult of course). The only difference
between the drug gangsters of today and the gangsters that arose as a
consequence of prohibition, is that they now tend to have Hispanic names
rather than Italian ones.
Besides, if you are willing to trust people to use guns responsibly, why
won't you trust them to use drugs responsibly?
Regards,
Eric
--
I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be
trusted to govern themselves without a master.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Eric H. Johnson
> Yep. Something Eric obviously does not realize is that in most cases
> regulations exist because the free industry failed in the past.
Regulations were generally introduced on the excuse that free industry
failed to anticipate every possible future outcome and therefore government
regulation is required. However, simply reacting to past problems is no
excuse for government intervention, since the free market already does that
on its own. So if government regulation offers some improvement, it should
be easy enough to prove, just cite one instance in which government
intervention anticipated and prevented a future problem, rather than simply
reacted to a past problem, which does not require government intervention.
Regards,
Eric
--
If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he
should see how it is with representation.
-- Rush Limbaugh
Loren Pechtel
<ejohnson_at_aaainc.com> wrote:
>I don't disagree with you on much, but here is one where I do. I definitely
>think all drugs should be legal, and none should require a doctor's
>authorization to purchase (by an adult of course). The only difference
>between the drug gangsters of today and the gangsters that arose as a
>consequence of prohibition, is that they now tend to have Hispanic names
>rather than Italian ones.
Disagree. There's a class of drugs which should be
prescription-only: Anything which fights infection. Their misuse
harms others, not just the user.
Loren Pechtel
>>Equally destructive and addictive as all other harddrugs, yet legal.
>
>Yes, but one can moderate consumption and still live a productive
>life. I don't know if that is the case with opium and cocaine.
Opium and cocaine, also. If you're not spending your life in
pursuit of the money for your habit they are both things you can live
with. They only become highly destructive when people can't afford
them.
Loren Pechtel
<no.sli...@no.thelandslide.spam.com> wrote:
>While true it's better to quit, the reason for this kind of setup is
>much more down to earth:
You're missing a critically important #4: If you can obtain the
drugs legally at a reasonable price the pushers gain nothing through
trying to make new addicts. Thus they do not engage in this
behavior--and the number of new addicts goes *WAY* down.
Loren Pechtel
>> They were outlawed because they were the drug of choice of
>>minorities, not of the white man.
>
>I have heard that too, but those drugs were used by whites in the late
>19th century, so I can't say for sure that is the only reason.
Some white men but not a lot.
>> If harm is the reason for the laws then start with the #1
>>killer: Tobacco. We've already tried banning the #2 killer and we
>>decided that it was a bad idea.
>
>Yes, but tobacco is insidious and one can function in society as a
>smoker. You cannot say that is the case for opium addicts.
One can function fine in society while hooked on opium. As long
as one has a good source of supply of consistent purity and the money
for it it's not disabling.
Other than addiction, opium actually has a pretty benign side
effect profile. It's not as harmful as things like aspirin, even.
Loren Pechtel
>>1) The drugs don't cause anywhere near the harm the drug war does.
>
>Harm to whom? If you mean gang members who are injured by violence,
>tough -- they choose to live that way.
>
>If you mean some stupid kid caught with a bag of weed, then I agree
>with you. There should be no criminal penalties for that.
The drug war costs something like $50 billion/year, not counting
the years of lost productivity and driving people to a life of crime.
I do not think that number counts the gang wars not directly involving
drugs. (Thus a gang shootout over a drug deal gone bad {assuming
there really were drugs there} would count, a gang shootout over sales
territory wouldn't.)
>>2) Even if you don't want full legalization, how about what Britian
>>*USED* to do: For the addictive ones, they were illegal but addiction
>>was a valid reason to get a prescription. It worked *FAR* better than
>>the current system.
>
>Probably because some view it as a moral issue and do not believe that
>the state should make it possible for one to do damage to himself. Far
>better one should quit than continue to use damaging drugs and then
>expect taxpayers to support him when his health collapses.
1) The reality is that they won't quit. Legal drugs would
greatly reduce the harm.
2) This argument is utterly stupid so long as tobacco is
legal. It causes more harm than all the illegal drugs combined.
Loren Pechtel
>You make some good points, but I believe the two most addictive drugs,
>heroin and cocaine both have devastating long-term effects, even when
>taken in a cleaner fashion, such as via clean needles, etc.
The most addictive drug isn't either heroin or cocaine. It's
nicotine. Which is legal over the counter.
agnostic
> 2) This argument is utterly stupid so long as tobacco is
> legal. It causes more harm than all the illegal drugs combined.
regards
agnostic
Kirt
> You're missing a critically important #4: If you can obtain the
> drugs legally at a reasonable price the pushers gain nothing through
> trying to make new addicts. Thus they do not engage in this
> behavior--and the number of new addicts goes *WAY* down.
tell it to the tobacco companies :(
still, that's better than prohibition.
Kirt
> I don't disagree with you on much, but here is one where I do. I definitely
> think all drugs should be legal, and none should require a doctor's
> authorization to purchase (by an adult of course).
many drugs require careful supervision by a doctor. psychiatric drugs
like prozac are an example. the dosages require fine tuning, and the
side effects must be monitored very carefully. even relatively simple
drugs like lithium require careful supervision to avoid harmful side
effects.
San Francis Bo
> many drugs require careful supervision by a doctor. psychiatric drugs
> like prozac are an example. the dosages require fine tuning, and the
> side effects must be monitored very carefully. even relatively simple
> drugs like lithium require careful supervision to avoid harmful side
> effects.
Lithium?
--
Carl Caulkett
> Kirt wrote on 12/6/2004 12:45 PST:
> > many drugs require careful supervision by a doctor. psychiatric
> > drugs like prozac are an example. the dosages require fine tuning,
> > and the side effects must be monitored very carefully. even
> > relatively simple drugs like lithium require careful supervision to
> > avoid harmful side effects.
>
> Lithium?
Same as Librium.
--
Carl
San Francis Bo
> San Francis Bo wrote:
>>Lithium?
>
> Same as Librium.
Strange name for a medication. But hey, some think sodium is salt.
--
Matt Jacobs
>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 14:12:32 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>> They were outlawed because they were the drug of choice of
>>>minorities, not of the white man.
>>
>>I have heard that too, but those drugs were used by whites in the late
>>19th century, so I can't say for sure that is the only reason.
>
> Some white men but not a lot.
Cocaine was very common and used by a lot of whites. Opium maybe a
little less.
>
>>> If harm is the reason for the laws then start with the #1
>>>killer: Tobacco. We've already tried banning the #2 killer and we
>>>decided that it was a bad idea.
>>
>>Yes, but tobacco is insidious and one can function in society as a
>>smoker. You cannot say that is the case for opium addicts.
>
> One can function fine in society while hooked on opium. As long
>as one has a good source of supply of consistent purity and the money
>for it it's not disabling.
How can you function if you sleep all day? :-)
>
> Other than addiction, opium actually has a pretty benign side
>effect profile. It's not as harmful as things like aspirin, even.
I don't think so. There are long term effects associated with opium
use.
Matt Jacobs
>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 10:01:16 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>You make some good points, but I believe the two most addictive drugs,
>>heroin and cocaine both have devastating long-term effects, even when
>>taken in a cleaner fashion, such as via clean needles, etc.
>
> The most addictive drug isn't either heroin or cocaine. It's
>nicotine. Which is legal over the counter.
Yes, I meant illegal drugs.
Matt Jacobs
>Matt Jacobs wrote:
>
>> If you mean drug gangs fighting among themselves, you can hardly blame
>> that on the war on drugs. Unless you think all drugs should be legal.
>
>I don't disagree with you on much, but here is one where I do. I definitely
>think all drugs should be legal, and none should require a doctor's
>authorization to purchase (by an adult of course). The only difference
>between the drug gangsters of today and the gangsters that arose as a
>consequence of prohibition, is that they now tend to have Hispanic names
>rather than Italian ones.
>
>Besides, if you are willing to trust people to use guns responsibly, why
>won't you trust them to use drugs responsibly?
I would not object to pot being legal. In many states it is
decriminalized. But harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine? I don't
know. And prescription drugs can be very dangerous when not taken as
ordered.
Matt Jacobs
>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 14:16:09 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>>1) The drugs don't cause anywhere near the harm the drug war does.
>>
>>Harm to whom? If you mean gang members who are injured by violence,
>>tough -- they choose to live that way.
>>
>>If you mean some stupid kid caught with a bag of weed, then I agree
>>with you. There should be no criminal penalties for that.
>
> The drug war costs something like $50 billion/year, not counting
>the years of lost productivity and driving people to a life of crime.
>I do not think that number counts the gang wars not directly involving
>drugs. (Thus a gang shootout over a drug deal gone bad {assuming
>there really were drugs there} would count, a gang shootout over sales
>territory wouldn't.)
We all make choices. Those who commit crimes to score drugs made their
choice and are owed nothing from society, other than a chance at
rehabilitation.
>>>2) Even if you don't want full legalization, how about what Britian
>>>*USED* to do: For the addictive ones, they were illegal but addiction
>>>was a valid reason to get a prescription. It worked *FAR* better than
>>>the current system.
>>
>>Probably because some view it as a moral issue and do not believe that
>>the state should make it possible for one to do damage to himself. Far
>>better one should quit than continue to use damaging drugs and then
>>expect taxpayers to support him when his health collapses.
>
> 1) The reality is that they won't quit. Legal drugs would
>greatly reduce the harm.
Many do quit.
> 2) This argument is utterly stupid so long as tobacco is
>legal. It causes more harm than all the illegal drugs combined.
Tobacco does not normally affect one's ability to function. And I have
never heard of anyone killing over a pack of cigarettes other than in
prison.
Liz [D]
> Same as Librium.
Not hardly!
librium
http://www.mentalhealth.com/drug/p30-l01.html
lithium
http://www.medicinenet.com/lithium/article.htm
--
liz
Poet Fury
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 14:10:35 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>>Equally destructive and addictive as all other harddrugs, yet legal.
>>
>>Yes, but one can moderate consumption and still live a productive
>>life. I don't know if that is the case with opium and cocaine.
>
> Opium and cocaine, also. If you're not spending your life in
> pursuit of the money for your habit they are both things you can live
> with. They only become highly destructive when people can't afford
> them.
And heroin, if you don't go overboard.
Don't expect to get terribly excited about anything, though.
Never do card tricks for the group you play poker with.
Rudy Velthuis
> > > Lithium?
> >
> > Same as Librium.
>
> Strange name for a medication. But hey, some think sodium is salt.
Indeed:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Li/key.html
But the med seems to be Li2CO3, not plain Li.
--
Rudy Velthuis
"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a
longer shelf life."
- Frank Zappa
Kirt
> But the med seems to be Li2CO3, not plain Li.
there's another variation, maybe the chloride (?).
me @kilroywuzhere Stephan
"Eric H. Johnson" <ejohnson_at_aaainc.com> wrote in message
news:41b48f7f$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> So if government regulation offers some improvement, it should
> be easy enough to prove, just cite one instance in which government
> intervention anticipated and prevented a future problem, rather than
simply
> reacted to a past problem, which does not require government intervention.
1.) OSHA safety regulations regarding tools and materials.
2) FDA test of any new drug / consumable
3) (whichever agency is responsible for) regulating the importation of
non-native species
4) Nuclear Regulatory commission
San Francis Bo
> San Francis Bo wrote:
>>>>Lithium?
>>>
>>>Same as Librium.
>>
>>Strange name for a medication. But hey, some think sodium is salt.
>
> Indeed:
>
> http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Li/key.html
>
> But the med seems to be Li2CO3, not plain Li.
I suspected that much; IOW this is a salt <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis
> > > Strange name for a medication. But hey, some think sodium is salt.
> >
> > Indeed:
> >
> > http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Li/key.html
> >
> > But the med seems to be Li2CO3, not plain Li.
>
> I suspected that much; IOW this is a salt <g>
Yup. Jeff, are you reading?
--
Rudy Velthuis
"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Carl Caulkett
> On 6 Dec 2004 14:36:10 -0800, Carl Caulkett wrote:
>
> > Same as Librium.
>
> Not hardly!
>
> librium
> http://www.mentalhealth.com/drug/p30-l01.html
>
> lithium
> http://www.medicinenet.com/lithium/article.htm
How odd. Not that I'm wrong, I hasten to add, but that here in the UK,
you just don't hear of Lithium as a medication, and I could have sworn
I heard or read that it was the same thing as Librium in the dim and
distant past.
--
Carl
San Francis Bo
> Liz [D] wrote:
>>On 6 Dec 2004 14:36:10 -0800, Carl Caulkett wrote:
>>
>>>Same as Librium.
>>
>>Not hardly!
>>
>>librium
>>http://www.mentalhealth.com/drug/p30-l01.html
>>
>>lithium
>>http://www.medicinenet.com/lithium/article.htm
>
> How odd. Not that I'm wrong, I hasten to add, but that here in the UK,
> you just don't hear of Lithium as a medication, and I could have sworn
> I heard or read that it was the same thing as Librium in the dim and
> distant past.
It seems, what it boils down to is that Lithium is the active
substance in a medication named Librium, but is bound in a salt
Li2CO3 until it's dissolved in the body. So, Librium is probably
a pretty colored lump of salt or a salt in a gel cap <g>
--
Liz [D]
> and I could have sworn
> I heard or read that it was the same thing as Librium in the dim and
> distant past.
I wonder where (seriously).
--
liz
Carl Caulkett
> On 7 Dec 2004 14:22:45 -0800, Carl Caulkett wrote:
>
> > and I could have sworn
> > I heard or read that it was the same thing as Librium in the dim and
> > distant past.
>
> I wonder where (seriously).
Most likely the first time I heard of "Lithium" as a medication was
hearing the Nirvana song of that name. Maybe I read something in a
music paper and took it as gospel. Foolish, I know <g>
--
Carl
Loren Pechtel
>>>You make some good points, but I believe the two most addictive drugs,
>>>heroin and cocaine both have devastating long-term effects, even when
>>>taken in a cleaner fashion, such as via clean needles, etc.
>>
>> The most addictive drug isn't either heroin or cocaine. It's
>>nicotine. Which is legal over the counter.
>
>Yes, I meant illegal drugs.
The point is that nicotine is more addictive and more harmful than any
of the common illegal ones. Thus any argument based on either harm or
addiction is garbage.
Loren Pechtel
>> 2) This argument is utterly stupid so long as tobacco is
>>legal. It causes more harm than all the illegal drugs combined.
>
>Tobacco does not normally affect one's ability to function. And I have
>never heard of anyone killing over a pack of cigarettes other than in
>prison.
You're making my point here. They don't kill over tobacco *BECAUSE*
people don't have a problem getting it. In prison, though...
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
>> You're missing a critically important #4: If you can obtain the
>> drugs legally at a reasonable price the pushers gain nothing through
>> trying to make new addicts. Thus they do not engage in this
>> behavior--and the number of new addicts goes *WAY* down.
>
>tell it to the tobacco companies :(
Tobacco companies sell their product at a legal market price, not a
black market price. If they had to sell it at a black market price
but the government sold cigarettes to addicts at a legal market price,
what would happen?
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>> Opium and cocaine, also. If you're not spending your life in
>> pursuit of the money for your habit they are both things you can live
>> with. They only become highly destructive when people can't afford
>> them.
>
>And heroin, if you don't go overboard.
>
>Don't expect to get terribly excited about anything, though.
Opium/heroin--basically the same drug just in a different form.
Loren Pechtel
>>
>> 2) This argument is utterly stupid so long as tobacco is
>> legal. It causes more harm than all the illegal drugs combined.
>You really mean that?
Yup. IIRC it's something like 400,000 deaths/year.
Loren Pechtel
<Fra...@bucket.bin> wrote:
>>Lithium?
>>
>> Same as Librium.
>
>Strange name for a medication. But hey, some think sodium is salt.
I don't think it's a strange name, I think it *IS* the element
lithium.
Loren Pechtel
>> One can function fine in society while hooked on opium. As long
>>as one has a good source of supply of consistent purity and the money
>>for it it's not disabling.
>
>How can you function if you sleep all day? :-)
Just don't take that much.
>> Other than addiction, opium actually has a pretty benign side
>>effect profile. It's not as harmful as things like aspirin, even.
>
>I don't think so. There are long term effects associated with opium
>use.
And there are with aspirin. It kills thousands of people every year.
Loren Pechtel
here> wrote:
>
>"Eric H. Johnson" <ejohnson_at_aaainc.com> wrote in message
>news:41b48f7f$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
>> So if government regulation offers some improvement, it should
>> be easy enough to prove, just cite one instance in which government
>> intervention anticipated and prevented a future problem, rather than
>simply
>> reacted to a past problem, which does not require government intervention.
>
>1.) OSHA safety regulations regarding tools and materials.
>2) FDA test of any new drug / consumable
>3) (whichever agency is responsible for) regulating the importation of
>non-native species
>4) Nuclear Regulatory commission
The first three aren't valid--they are in response to problems. Sure
the organizations now act to prevent problems but that's not why they
were created. You are right about the NRC.
Liz [D]
> I don't think so. There are long term effects associated with opium
> use.
The major bad effects of opiates and opioids are:
- physical dependence
- constipation
- dry mouth (which can lead to gum and tooth problems)
--
liz
San Francis Bo
> And there are with aspirin. It kills thousands of people every year.
Could be mostly prevented if people wouldn't take it on an empty
stomach.
--
Rudy Velthuis
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:43:43 -0800, San Francis Bo
> <Fra...@bucket.bin> wrote:
>
> > > Lithium?
> >>
> >> Same as Librium.
> >
> > Strange name for a medication. But hey, some think sodium is salt.
>
> I don't think it's a strange name, I think it IS the element
> lithium.
Hardly. AFAIK, lithium is an alkali metal, like sodium. I doubt people
would swallow that as it is.
--
Rudy Velthuis
"The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing
without
work."
-- Emile Zola (1840-1902)
San Francis Bo
> <Fra...@bucket.bin> wrote:
>>>Lithium?
>>>
>>>Same as Librium.
>>
>>Strange name for a medication. But hey, some think sodium is salt.
>
> I don't think it's a strange name, I think it *IS* the element
> lithium.
No, it contains the element Lithium bound in the salt Li2CO3.
One doesn't get pure Lithium to swallow, just like one doesn't
eat pure Magnesium, Sodium, etc. They're all bound in a salt
or oxide.
--
Rudy Velthuis
> Loren Pechtel wrote on 12/7/2004 15:54 PST:
> > And there are with aspirin. It kills thousands of people every
> > year.
>
> Could be mostly prevented if people wouldn't take it on an empty
> stomach.
And OTOH, Aspirin (or any acetylsalicylic acid product) in a 100mg -
300mg daily dose saves a lot of lives as well.
--
Rudy Velthuis
"I never miss a chance to have sex or appear on television."
- Gore Vidal
James David
news:1csdfehugqa8y.aqwhmpxkonuo$.dlg@40tude.net...
> lithium
> http://www.medicinenet.com/lithium/article.htm
Hmmm...I couldn't find any reference to dilithium crystals.
San Francis Bo
> And OTOH, Aspirin (or any acetylsalicylic acid product) in a 100mg -
> 300mg daily dose saves a lot of lives as well.
True. That's why many people take it daily, but often not correctly,
after eating something, and then they get sick or worse.
It's so easy to do this right, but I personally know 2 people who
got in trouble because of their eating habits (Aspirin instead of
breakfast).
--
Matt Jacobs
>Rudy Velthuis wrote on 12/7/2004 16:31 PST:
>> And OTOH, Aspirin (or any acetylsalicylic acid product) in a 100mg -
>> 300mg daily dose saves a lot of lives as well.
>
>True. That's why many people take it daily, but often not correctly,
>after eating something, and then they get sick or worse.
>It's so easy to do this right, but I personally know 2 people who
>got in trouble because of their eating habits (Aspirin instead of
>breakfast).
That's why the docs recommend aspirin with enteric coating.
http://www.ecotrin.com/
Matt Jacobs
>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:44:22 -0800, Matt Jacobs wrote:
>
>> I don't think so. There are long term effects associated with opium
>> use.
>
>The major bad effects of opiates and opioids are:
>- physical dependence
>- constipation
>- dry mouth (which can lead to gum and tooth problems)
Plus also deafness and liver problems.
Matt Jacobs
>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:49:19 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>> 2) This argument is utterly stupid so long as tobacco is
>>>legal. It causes more harm than all the illegal drugs combined.
>>
>>Tobacco does not normally affect one's ability to function. And I have
>>never heard of anyone killing over a pack of cigarettes other than in
>>prison.
>
>You're making my point here. They don't kill over tobacco *BECAUSE*
>people don't have a problem getting it. In prison, though...
And perhaps because the effects of not having a cigarette when you
want one are not as bad as not getting an injection of heroin when you
want that.
Matt Jacobs
>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:44:59 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>>>You make some good points, but I believe the two most addictive drugs,
>>>>heroin and cocaine both have devastating long-term effects, even when
>>>>taken in a cleaner fashion, such as via clean needles, etc.
>>>
>>> The most addictive drug isn't either heroin or cocaine. It's
>>>nicotine. Which is legal over the counter.
>>
>>Yes, I meant illegal drugs.
>
>The point is that nicotine is more addictive and more harmful than any
>of the common illegal ones. Thus any argument based on either harm or
>addiction is garbage.
Smokers can function. And nicotine might even improve concentration. I
don't think you can say the same about heroin.
Matt Jacobs
>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:44:22 -0800, Matt Jacobs <no...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>> One can function fine in society while hooked on opium. As long
>>>as one has a good source of supply of consistent purity and the money
>>>for it it's not disabling.
>>
>>How can you function if you sleep all day? :-)
>
>Just don't take that much.
If it were that easy there would be no drug addicts.
>>> Other than addiction, opium actually has a pretty benign side
>>>effect profile. It's not as harmful as things like aspirin, even.
>>
>>I don't think so. There are long term effects associated with opium
>>use.
>
>And there are with aspirin. It kills thousands of people every year.
Often because it is taken by those with stomach ulcers, or by people
who should not take it all, such as those taking blood thinners.
San Francis Bo
> That's why the docs recommend aspirin with enteric coating.
> http://www.ecotrin.com/
That's why I recommend breakfast.
--
Matt Jacobs
>Matt Jacobs wrote on 12/7/2004 18:20 PST:
>> That's why the docs recommend aspirin with enteric coating.
>> http://www.ecotrin.com/
>
>That's why I recommend breakfast.
That's not enough.
Jeff
>> IOW, government intervention on both legal and currently illegal drugs
>> appears to be a failure.
>
> I'm sure all the pharmecuticals want to get rid of the FDA, especially with
> BushCo wanting to limit liability lawsuits. Man what a money bonanza that
> would be. You could legally kill people at 250k a pop.
No they don't. The FDA helps them eliminate the competition from small
companies with cheaper and better products.
The FDA helps Rockefeller keep his legal drug monopoly same as the War on
Drugs helps the CIA keep its illegal drug monopoly.
--
Jeff
"Beyond the point of satisfying need, redundant capacity becomes a burden
and not a gain. Greed, the attempt to fill an empty spirit with
possessions, is a great producer of depersonalization. Our preoccupation
with labor saving, beyond the elimination of soul-destroying drudgery, is
no less counterproductive. To have without doing corrodes the soul: it is
precisely in investing life, love and labor that we constitute the world as
personal... Generosity of the spirit personalizes as greed depersonalizes."
--Erazim Kohák, a Czech philosopher
Jeff
>> I think I've almost got one guy here convinced it's been a waste of
>> time and money.
>
> While others of us never needed any convincing.
>
> Of course that isn't even half the drug problem, the bigger problem is with
> the ones that are entirely legal. See:
Yup.
Jeff
> http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-04.html
>
> I think I've almost got one guy here convinced it's been a waste of time
> and money.
If I could wave a wand and the current prison populations could be replaced
with the shadow government, I would.
Mike Orriss
> And OTOH, Aspirin (or any acetylsalicylic acid product) in a 100mg -
> 300mg daily dose saves a lot of lives as well.
That seems a high dose. I'm on 75mg.
Mike
Poet Fury
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:55:41 +0100, Poet Fury <dev...@genjerdan.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Opium and cocaine, also. If you're not spending your life in
>>> pursuit of the money for your habit they are both things you can live
>>> with. They only become highly destructive when people can't afford
>>> them.
>>
>>And heroin, if you don't go overboard.
>>
>>Don't expect to get terribly excited about anything, though.
>
> Opium/heroin--basically the same drug just in a different form.
Yep.
But you can sneak into IFF (International Flavors & Fragrances) and swipe
some opium.
They probably don't have any heroin in the safe. ;-)
In a country of free speech, why are there phone bills?
Kirt
>>> You're missing a critically important #4: If you can obtain the
>>>drugs legally at a reasonable price the pushers gain nothing through
>>>trying to make new addicts. Thus they do not engage in this
>>>behavior--and the number of new addicts goes *WAY* down.
>>
>>tell it to the tobacco companies :(
>
>
> Tobacco companies sell their product at a legal market price, not a
> black market price. If they had to sell it at a black market price
> but the government sold cigarettes to addicts at a legal market price,
> what would happen?
you said:
> If you can obtain the
> drugs legally at a reasonable price the pushers gain nothing through
> trying to make new addicts.
i mention the tobacco companies as a counter example. they did much to
try to gain new addicts.
Eric H. Johnson
> Disagree. There's a class of drugs which should be
> prescription-only: Anything which fights infection. Their misuse
> harms others, not just the user.
You can use that argument to ban anything. Some people misuse their
automobiles too, either directly by running over people, or indirectly as a
means for engaging in other illegal activity. It is still not a legitimate
reason to ban automobiles.
Same thing applies to drugs, guns, alcohol, etc.
Regards,
Eric
--
You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money.
-- P.J O'Rourke
Eric H. Johnson
> I would not object to pot being legal. In many states it is
> decriminalized. But harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine? I don't
> know. And prescription drugs can be very dangerous when not taken as
> ordered.
Dangerous to whom? Isn't someone toting a .44 Magnum more dangerous to
others than someone toting cocaine or heroin? If they are only a danger to
themselves, isn't that a self correcting problem?
Regards,
Eric
--
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should
soon want bread. -- Thomas Jefferson
Eric H. Johnson
> many drugs require careful supervision by a doctor. psychiatric drugs
> like prozac are an example. the dosages require fine tuning, and the
> side effects must be monitored very carefully. even relatively simple
> drugs like lithium require careful supervision to avoid harmful side
> effects.
True, and responsible people will use them responsibly, which includes doing
what you described, while not using them responsibly has its own penalties
and therefore is self correcting.
Liberty comes with the presumption that people will use their liberty
responsibly, tyranny comes from the presumption that they will not. I prefer
accepting the risks of liberty to the guarantees of tyranny.
Regards,
Eric
--
The President cannot make clouds to rain and cannot make the corn to grow,
he cannot make business good; although when these things occur, political
parties do claim some credit for the good things that have happened in this
way.
-- William Howard Taft
Eric H. Johnson
> 1.) OSHA safety regulations regarding tools and materials.
Only after the fact. It sets those regulations based on accidents that have
occurred in the past, it is not really anticipating future ones.
> 2) FDA test of any new drug / consumable
Same thing.
> 3) (whichever agency is responsible for) regulating the importation of
> non-native species
So how is it all those non-native species keep getting in any way?
> 4) Nuclear Regulatory commission
It predates TMI. Why didn't it prevent that?
Regards,
Eric
--
America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common
good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own
personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did
not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the
people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine
they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance --
and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering,
every step of the way.
-- Ayn Rand
Rudy Velthuis
> Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
> > And OTOH, Aspirin (or any acetylsalicylic acid product) in a 100mg -
> > 300mg daily dose saves a lot of lives as well.
>
> That seems a high dose. I'm on 75mg.
Most of my patients who take it are on 100mg, and some have 200mg or
300mg.
--
Rudy Velthuis
"I was raised in the Jewish tradition, taught never to marry a
Gentile woman, shave on a Saturday night and, most especially, never
to shave a Gentile woman on a Saturday night." -- Woody Allen.