'Dump' the drug companies and free-up drugs
Brian Paul Lilburn
'Dump' the drug companies
Dump the subsidies on all drugs. Let the
drug companies charge what they think is
necessary without getting any medical
subventions. Also, let people grow
marajuana or buy drugs on on open market,
without prohibition. It's wrong to try to
regulate what people choose to put into
their mouths, and because it is wrong, it
is leading to the utter absurdities we have
to live with; where, by arbitrary fiat of
history and 'society', respectable people
can make millions and millions out of selling
harmful substances like cigarettes and
alchohol, and the various pestacides,
preservatives, food flavourings and dyes that
are mildly poisonous. Even some over-sugary
and over-fatty foods could come into that
category, as well as a lot of the mindless,
cheap-dream-time and gratuitously violent TV,
dubbed by Robert Bligh as "cultural thalidomide
for children".
(Smoking is a bit different from other drugs
because of the dangers of passive smoking for
non-smokers, so that needs some regulation.)
But, getting back to taking off all subsidies
for medical drugs; our society would be much
healthier if most of these medical drugs were
gone without because of being too expensive!
Pharmac is only compounding social ill-health
by subsidies on drugs. The disgusting scare-
mongering ads the drug companies have been
putting on TV to try to bully Pharmac into
shrinking from its attempts to regulate for
cheaper drugs, should be thrown back into the
faces of the voraciously greedy drug companies.
That said, I would advocate that Pharmac become
a body that has a smaller role: to listen to the
pleas of patients and doctors where there is a
case for the use of a life-saving drug. If Pharmac
is convinced, it would then act as an advocate to
have Social Welfare subsidise *the patient*, not
the drug. Social Welfare would do so on the basis
of a means test, so that if the patient had
substantial private means, he/she would be required
to pay for most or all of the drug's cost anyway.
'If you would live in health, be old early.'(Spanish
proverb)
Brian
pedro
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:07:29 +1300, not.my.r...@spammers.go.away
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>> let people grow
>> marajuana or buy drugs on on open market,
>> without prohibition.
>
>Tell me, is there one civilised country in the world where this has
>actually happened that we can use as a test case?
The Netherlands. This emimently sensible nation is also keeping tabs
on the experience. Check it out at:
http://www.minvws.nl/drugnota/0/drugall.htm
Patrick Dunford
In article <be7cd$113a5.39c@MARLI>, sam...@lynx.spambuster.co.nz says...
> 'Dump' the drug companies
>
<snip>
> let people grow
> marajuana or buy drugs on on open market,
> without prohibition.
Tell me, is there one civilised country in the world where this has
actually happened that we can use as a test case?
> It's wrong to try to
> regulate what people choose to put into
> their mouths, and because it is wrong, it
> is leading to the utter absurdities we have
> to live with; <break>
Some regulation is better than none at all because of the harmful effects
on society by allowing unrestricted use; obvious problem with alcoholism
in Russian society, and known health effects of smoking.
> <cont> where, by arbitrary fiat of
> history and 'society', respectable people
> can make millions and millions out of selling
> harmful substances like cigarettes and
> alchohol.
Alcohol is only harmful if consumed to excess. It is not totally the
Government's or anyone's fault that people choose to over-indulge.
Restrictions on alcohol use benefit society by limiting abuse in certain
situations.
--
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Email Name: pdunford
Email Domain: xtra.co.nz
Reader: Anawave Gravity 2.0b2
Brian Paul Lilburn
In article <MPG.ed700a75...@news.xtra.co.nz>, not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) says:
>
>In article <be7cd$113a5.39c@MARLI>, sam...@lynx.spambuster.co.nz says...
>> 'Dump' the drug companies
>>
><snip>
>> let people grow
>> marajuana or buy drugs on on open market,
>> without prohibition.
>
>Tell me, is there one civilised country in the world where this has
>actually happened that we can use as a test case?
Don't you know that the use of marajuana or cannabis has a long
history, often associated with relieving painful conditions; but the
*prohibition* of it is a comparatively recent *fad*?
>
>> It's wrong to try to
>> regulate what people choose to put into
>> their mouths, and because it is wrong, it
>> is leading to the utter absurdities we have
>> to live with; <break>
>
>Some regulation is better than none at all because of the harmful effects
>on society by allowing unrestricted use; obvious problem with alcoholism
>in Russian society, and known health effects of smoking.
Why bring in "Russian society" - you seem to have something of an anti-Russian
fixation. That would interest my son-in-law, who is a Russian. All right, if
you have a miserable society, you get a lot of alchoholism. Let's get rid
of the miserable society, then, the Les Mills of the world, who think 'fun'
should meen going to one of his gyms, I suppose. There's still a lot of
po-faced socialist/capitalist realism going on round NZ these days.
>
>> <cont> where, by arbitrary fiat of
>> history and 'society', respectable people
>> can make millions and millions out of selling
>> harmful substances like cigarettes and
>> alchohol.
>
>Alcohol is only harmful if consumed to excess.
so is joint-smoking.
It is not totally the
>Government's or anyone's fault that people choose to over-indulge.
>Restrictions on alcohol use benefit society by limiting abuse in certain
>situations.
All right - bring in the i.d.cards, so kids can be prevented from buying it.
The Government has certain responsibilities. But basically, its not the
Government's *business* what consenting adults put in their mouths. Now,
it is a psychological guess on my part that if a government really came down
strong on that side, the effect on those who want to do something to themselves
that upsets the government and 'establishment' would be electric. They would
have the shock of realising that (so long as hurt was not demonstably done
to others) nobody is taking any responsibility for what they do to themselves
*but themselves*. There is no defiant sort of heroism surrounding getting
into enclaves of dope and no special kind of social tolerance in contrast to
dope in getting oneself plastered with alchohol ... And so on.
'Weak people prefer to be dependent in order to be protected. Those who
fear men love the laws of the land.' (Vauvenargues)
Brian
Brian Paul Lilburn
In article <MPG.ed7d7866...@news.xtra.co.nz>, not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) says:
>
>In article <bf7cd$ca8.1a5@MARLI>, sam...@lynx.spambuster.co.nz says...
>> In article <MPG.ed700a75...@news.xtra.co.nz>, not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) says:
>> >
>
>I'm surprised you haven't joined the Libertarianz yet.
>
>--
>Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
I find it difficult to respond to this posting, Patrick, because
you have rather unfairly taken out of my quite long posting
those bits that (out of context) *do* make me sound like
a Libertarianz.
'If you cannot be free, be as free as you can.' (Emerson)
Brian
Patrick Dunford
In article <bf7cd$111210.1ec@MARLI>, sam...@lynx.spambuster.co.nz says...
> In article <MPG.ed7d7866...@news.xtra.co.nz>, not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) says:
> >In article <bf7cd$ca8.1a5@MARLI>, sam...@lynx.spambuster.co.nz says...
> >> In article <MPG.ed700a75...@news.xtra.co.nz>, not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) says:
> >
> >I'm surprised you haven't joined the Libertarianz yet.
>
> you have rather unfairly taken out of my quite long posting
> those bits that (out of context) *do* make me sound like
> a Libertarianz.
The Libertarianz advocate free drug use etc I believe, just as you did in
the original post.
--
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Patrick Dunford
In article <bf7cd$ca8.1a5@MARLI>, sam...@lynx.spambuster.co.nz says...
> In article <MPG.ed700a75...@news.xtra.co.nz>, not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) says:
> >
> history, often associated with relieving painful conditions; but the
> *prohibition* of it is a comparatively recent *fad*?
And why was it banned, pray tell? Because it is a harmful drug? Why is
LSD, PCP, heroin or cocaine banned then?
> Why bring in "Russian society" - you seem to have something of an anti-Russian
> fixation.
No I could have just as easily said irish, and upset some Irishman, OK?
> All right, if
> you have a miserable society, you get a lot of alchoholism. Let's get rid
> of the miserable society, then, the Les Mills of the world, who think 'fun'
> should meen going to one of his gyms, I suppose. There's still a lot of
> po-faced socialist/capitalist realism going on round NZ these days.
Not as much alcoholism here as Russia? Communism/capitalism has nothing
to do with it, people can choose individually what to do about their
misery.
At least here we have more free choices than a communist country.
> The Government has certain responsibilities. But basically, its not the
> Government's *business* what consenting adults put in their mouths.
What are those responsililities? Do they include protecting the
vulnerable elements of society? What point would there be in having
education for kids if they all spent the time doped out instead? How
about the association between heavy cannabis use and mental health
problems?
I'm surprised you haven't joined the Libertarianz yet.
> Now,
> it is a psychological guess on my part that if a government really came down
> strong on that side, the effect on those who want to do something to themselves
> that upsets the government and 'establishment' would be electric. They would
> have the shock of realising that (so long as hurt was not demonstably done
> to others) nobody is taking any responsibility for what they do to themselves
> *but themselves*.
Why do we have the laws - because of drunk driving, because the various
drugs are actually harmful to people, and harmful to unborn children.
People do not actually take responsibility for anything if they can help
it, in areas where there is no government regulation, they don't take
responsibility!
Harry Johnston
not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>> Don't you know that the use of marajuana or cannabis has a long
>> history, often associated with relieving painful conditions; but the
>> *prohibition* of it is a comparatively recent *fad*?
>
> And why was it banned, pray tell? Because it is a harmful drug?
Allegedly, because it was competing too successfully with the forests
owned by an influential US Senator. (Apparently, marajuana is a
particularly efficient crop for paper production).
Might be an urban legend, of course.
Harry.
---
Harry Johnston, om...@ihug.co.nz
IT WASN'T, he decided, that you couldn't take it with you, because
you could. It was just that there wasn't exactly a superfluity of
things you could spend it on once you got there.
--- Tom Holt, "Djinn Rummy"
Dave Joll
Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>In article <346f140f...@news.ihug.co.nz>, om...@ihug.co.nz says...
>> not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>> > And why was it banned, pray tell? Because it is a harmful drug?
>> Allegedly, because it was competing too successfully with the forests
>> owned by an influential US Senator. (Apparently, marajuana is a
>> particularly efficient crop for paper production).
>And did this senator own forests in New Zealand then?
This urban legend (?) sounds a bit more like the local
politicians slavishly following any silly trend to come
from the United States.
Regards
Dave Joll
Patrick Dunford
In article <346f140f...@news.ihug.co.nz>, om...@ihug.co.nz says...
> not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
> > And why was it banned, pray tell? Because it is a harmful drug?
>
> Allegedly, because it was competing too successfully with the forests
> owned by an influential US Senator. (Apparently, marajuana is a
> particularly efficient crop for paper production).
And did this senator own forests in New Zealand then?
--
Brian Paul Lilburn
In article <64rmj4$p...@Chaos.es.co.nz>, "Dave Joll" <jol...@es.co.nz> says:
>
>
>Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>>> not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>> > And why was it banned, pray tell? Because it is a harmful drug?
>
>>> Allegedly, because it was competing too successfully with the forests
>>> owned by an influential US Senator. (Apparently, marajuana is a
>>> particularly efficient crop for paper production).
>
>>And did this senator own forests in New Zealand then?
>
>
>politicians slavishly following any silly trend to come
>from the United States.
>
>Regards
>
>Dave Joll
>
follow you. As I see it, the silly trends coming from the United States
are exactly (very often) the prurient, priggish, prudish puritanism that
began with the Prohibition fiasco and continues with various kinds of
witch hunting (such as put Peter Ellis here in prison) and is largely
responsible for NZ going down the path of trying to ban marajuana
(and other things people might what to put in their mouths) by *laws*:
rather than by sensible civic campaigns of health-education,
and drives to improve solidarity among disadvantaged peoples
and better, more just, social conditions.
'Untwisting all the chains that tie the hidden soul of harmony.' (Milton)
Brian
Isaac Freeman
In article <346f140f...@news.ihug.co.nz>, om...@ihug.co.nz (Harry Johnston) writes:
> not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
> > And why was it banned, pray tell? Because it is a harmful drug?
>
> Allegedly, because it was competing too successfully with the forests
> owned by an influential US Senator. (Apparently, marajuana is a
> particularly efficient crop for paper production).
>
There's another, related, legend that some pretty strong lobbying from
tobacco and hops growers was also involved.
Personally, I don't much care whether it's legal or not, as I'm not going
to use it either way.
Isaac Freeman
Conal Tuohy
Isaac Freeman <ij...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote
Johnston) writes:
> > not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
> > > And why was it banned, pray tell? Because it is a harmful drug?
> >
> > Allegedly, because it was competing too successfully with the forests
> > owned by an influential US Senator. (Apparently, marajuana is a
> > particularly efficient crop for paper production).
> >
> > Might be an urban legend, of course.
>
> There's another, related, legend that some pretty strong lobbying from
> tobacco and hops growers was also involved.
I've heard that it was part of a campaign against Mexicans, and I've also
heard that another group behind it was the makers of artificial fibres in
the US. They wanted to ban hemp (in some ways the best source of natural
fibres) in order to secure a good international market for nylon etc.
That's certainly how it worked out, of course ;-)
Interestingly, hemp was un-banned in the US during the war, in order to use
it for making war materials esp. rope. There was a lovely pro-hemp movie
made by the US military at the time which I've seen "Hemp For Victory!".
Dave Joll
Brian Paul Lilburn wrote in message <64svsq$jp2$2...@hnnews1.netlink.net.nz>...>>>In article <346f140f...@news.ihug.co.nz>, om...@ihug.co.nz says...
>>>> Allegedly, because it was competing too successfully with the forests
>>>> owned by an influential US Senator. (Apparently, marajuana is a
>>>> particularly efficient crop for paper production).
>>politicians slavishly following any silly trend to come
>>from the United States.
I don't have a strong opinion re: marijuana. I don't smoke the
stuff but I don't see it as the harbinger of doom either. Basically,
people are welcome to smoke it as long as they don't do it
anywhere near me. (Much like tobacco in that respect).
> I don't
>follow you. As I see it, the silly trends coming from the United States
>are exactly (very often) the prurient, priggish, prudish puritanism that
>began with the Prohibition fiasco and continues with various kinds of
>witch hunting (such as put Peter Ellis here in prison) and is largely
>responsible for NZ going down the path of trying to ban marajuana
>(and other things people might what to put in their mouths)
That's not too far from the point I was trying to make. Although
"Prohibition" in general (i.e. of alcohol) was not so much
American-driven but a world wide phenomenon. By the time
the United States voted for Prohibition, Invercargill was already "dry".
Regards
Dave Joll
pedro
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:11:46 GMT, om...@ihug.co.nz (Harry Johnston)
wrote:
>not.my.r...@spammers.go.away (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>> Don't you know that the use of marajuana or cannabis has a long
>>> history, often associated with relieving painful conditions; but the
>>> *prohibition* of it is a comparatively recent *fad*?
>>
>> And why was it banned, pray tell? Because it is a harmful drug?
>
>Allegedly, because it was competing too successfully with the forests
>owned by an influential US Senator. (Apparently, marajuana is a
>particularly efficient crop for paper production).
>
>Might be an urban legend, of course.
Pretty close, but try the following from Ecolution's most excellent
website at http://ecolution.com/pubenem.html
HEMP HISTORY - PROHIBITION
THE MEN WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE
FOR MAKING HEMP ILLEGAL
Public Enemy #1
- Harry J. Anslinger -
Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (predecessor to the
DEA)
Harry Anslinger was largely responsible for the prohibition era war on
the cannabis plant. Along with the Hearst newspaper chain, Anslinger
spread horrifying stories of rape and murder by "negroes, mexicans and
orientals" who were supposedly under the influence of the "terrible
drug marihuana". These manufactured stories came mostly from the
infamous "yellow journalism" of the Hearst Newspaper chain. Anslinger
was often the source for these stories and used the bully pupit to
spread fear of marihuana. Anslinger was the nephew in law of Andrew
Mellon.
Mellon was the Secretary of the Treasury, owner of Gulf Oil and one of
the richest men in America. Mellon used his influence to get his
nephew appointed to his position as head of the newly formed Federal
Bureau of Narcotics. In addition Mellon owned Mellon Bank which loaned
Lammont Du Pont large sums of money to help finance his growing
pertochemical business.
William Randolf Hearst and Lammont Dupont
In the 1920's the Du Pont company developed and patented fuel
additives such as tetraethyl lead, as well as the sulfate and sulfite
processes for manufacture of pulp paper and numerous new synthetic
products such as nylon, cellophane, and other plastics. At the same
time other companies were developing synthetic products from renewable
biomass resources--especially hemp.
The hemp decorticator promised to eliminate much of the need for
wood-pulp paper, thus threatening to drastically reduce the value of
the vast timberlands still owned by Hearst. Ford and other companies
were already promising to make every product from cannabis
carbohydrates that was currently being made from petroleum
hydrocarbons. In response, from 1935 to 1937, Du Pont lobbied the
chief counsel of the Treasury Department, Herman Oliphant, for the
prohibition of cannabis, assuring him that Du Pont's synthetic
petrochemicals (such as urethane) could replace hemp seed oil in the
marketplace.
William Randolf Hearst hated minorities, and he used his chain of
newspapers to aggravate racial tensions at every opportunity. Hearst
especially hated Mexicans. Hearst papers portrayed Mexicans as lazy,
degenerate, and violent, and as marijuana smokers and job stealers.
The real motive behind this prejudice may well have been that Hearst
had lost 800,000 acres of prime timberland to the rebel Pancho Villa,
suggesting that Hearst's racism was fueled by Mexican threat to his
empire.
Andrew Mellon - Secretary of the Treasury
Andrew Mellon, Anslinger's uncle, financed an oil well in Texas in
1900 which led to one of the biggest oil strikes of that time. He
later bought out his partners to become the sole owner of Gulf Oil.
This made him one of the richest men in the United States. By the time
that Mellon was sworn in as Secretary of the Treasury in 1912 he was
considered the richest man in America. Despite the obvious conflict of
interest and the collapse of the US economy in 1929, Mellon continued
in his powerful post for 20 years. There were numerous scandals during
his tenure including the Teapot Dome scandal where Mellon was involved
in the illegal sale of public oil leases as well as bribery and secret
campaign contributions for the 1920 Presidential race.
Greed and self interest were the main reasons that these individuals
worked to discredit the cannabis plant. Anslinger continued his
campaign against hemp up unitl he retired in the 1960's. This campaign
was felt around the world and ultimately was successful in the
prohibition of cannabis across the planet. Many countries are begining
to take a look at these failed policies of the past. Hemp is once
again being recognized as a valuable resource which should be utilized
in place of the toxic solutions of the past.
Anything that can be made from wood or oil can be made from hemp. It
is now time to begin researching the myriad of applications for this
important plant.
The following sources were used to gather this information:
Hemp - Lifeline to the Future, by Chris Conrad - Creative Expressions
Publications
The Emperor Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer - Hemp Publishing
Hemp Today, by Ed Rosenthal - Quick American Archives
Brian Paul Lilburn
>The following sources were used to gather this information:
>
>Hemp - Lifeline to the Future, by Chris Conrad - Creative Expressions
>Publications
>The Emperor Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer - Hemp Publishing
>Hemp Today, by Ed Rosenthal - Quick American Archives
>
Thanks, Pedro, for posting that interesting account. It shows
the *repressive* as opposed to the oppressive face of capitalism.
Not that I am trying to knock capitalism in all its aspects. But
it is clear that the struggle to grab a monopoly breeds corruption
and often (with the implications of the cannabis ban that seems
to have flowed from it) *social repression* as well.
Brian