| Pages:
1
2 |
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8030
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
The problem with modern regulations is that they are excessively tight. In all ways does the government want to protect the polulace. This kind of
regulations makes many of us complete dumbasses when it comes to safety, responsible acting and reasonable use of materials and foods. I dislike the
nanny-mentality of the western world.
I do not say that agencies like the DEA, CPSC, FDA should disappear. They have a good signalling function and it also is good that the risks of
products are made public. But what happens now is that others try to decide for me what is good and what is bad. Let the agencies do their reseach and
let them give their advice on product safety (and as a payer of taxes I also am willing to pay some amount for that), but let the people themselves
decide whether they take the risk or not. I know that ethanol is a class I carcinogen, but still I occasionaly drink a glass of wine and I accept the
risk. It is an illusion that we can have a life without risk, which still is worth living. In a world where all risks are banned I think most people
don't want to live. The same is true with some extreme sports. People know the risks but still enjoy these sports.
When it comes to drugs I have a mixed attitude. I myself don't want any of it (not for personal use, nor in my family), but I can imagine that limited
and careful use of _some kinds of_ drugs can be combined with a reasonable and acceptable life style. E.g. a person having a few hemp plants in his
house for personal occasional use is not a problem for me. it becomes problematic for me if such a person becomes a nuisance for others or if such a
person destroys his own body by means of excessive use. Some drugs are so bad that it is better if they are banned, but we should not be so paranoia
that every single compound which is somewhat dangerous must be banned at once.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  | If I understand correctly, you are saying that the citizens should be free to decide what they want to put into their bodies. Is this correct?
So do you think that companies should be allowed to sell whatever substance they please for adults to swallow, snort, smoke or inject according to
their own judgment?
Should we do away with the DEA, FDA, CPSC and EPA since adults will be making these decisions for themselves with no meddling by the guvmint?
See Elixir Sulfanilamide |
I think that medical claims about products should still require government evaluation. I think that regulators can and should enforce label disclosure
of ingredients, conformity of contents with labeling, and label disclosure of known health risks (or disclosure of the fact that health risks are
unknown, for new products).
I think that inherently dangerous-to-user products, like tobacco and other drugs both legal and currently illegal, should be labeled as such, and not
promoted with fraudulent labels or advertising, but I don't think they should be illegal for adults to sell or buy. So in my dream-world the DEA would
disappear or have a much diminished role. I don't think it makes sense for the FDA to enforce standards for non-medical use of drugs, so maybe that
could be the DEA's new role, or maybe it's more appropriate for the BATFE to oversee such drugs.
I don't think what I have described would seriously impair the operation of the FDA, CPSC, or EPA. Under my proposal you still can't sell laudanum as
medicine unless it's passed a proper clinical trial for a medical condition (though you can sell laudanum, plastered with warnings much like
cigarettes). You can sell a poisonous concoction, but labeled appropriately, not promoted as "soothing syrup" or whatever. The CPSC can still make
rules for drug packaging and monitor OTC drugs for contamination (I am not sure why that's not handled solely by the FDA, but I digress). The EPA, to
my knowledge, doesn't have anything to do with controlling consumer purchase, use, or disposal of drugs. I don't think they've even yet set wastewater
standards for hormones and other endocrine affecting drugs that enter the sewers from human excretion.
Actually, the group of substances that is hardest to handle in my dream world is not habit-forming drugs but antibiotics. If you become an alcoholic,
you're primarily a danger to yourself, though you can be a material danger to others if you get belligerent or try to operate heavy machinery under
the influence, and you're a social hazard in that people who counted on your support (or at the very least your ability to support yourself) are
short-changed. In terms of chronic and acute health risks to oneself, and direct and indirect risks to others, I don't think any recreational drug
habit is markedly worse than alcohol dependency, and Prohibition brought far more ills than legal alcohol sales without even coming close to ending
alcohol dependency.
Antibiotics are different, though. Overuse or improper use promotes drug resistance that is a material threat to everyone who faces bacterial
infections in the future. I do not think that adults should be legally barred from risking or taking their own lives, but I am not so sanguine when
there is a substantial risk to life and limb imposed upon others without their consent. Antibiotics and antivirals are about the only drugs I would
want to see remain prescription-only.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
densest
Hazard to Others
Posts: 359
Registered: 1-10-2005
Location: in the lehr
Member Is Offline
Mood: slowly warming to strain point
|
|
I mostly agree with polverone.... with a few extensions and caveats.
Anyone and everyone - especially corporations - should be responsible for the side effects of their indulgences.
For instance, a lot of good data has come out about secondhand tobacco smoke since many jurisdictions have prohibited indoor smoking. Large drops in
heart attacks, etc. in nonsmokers have resulted. Also, in areas where the prohibition has been in effect longer, it has been sufficiently (to me)
demonstrated that significant long term damage is done to fetuses to justify the prohibition. I really don't care if someone enjoys a cigarette or
cigar - just don't ask me to pay for his hospital bills, and the smoker should pay for the damage done to other people.
I really don't care about anyone taking amphetamines - there are very valid reasons to do so. Unfortunately, there are many people who do so to great
excess. Some do because they want/need to stay awake to make enough money to live. That's part of social justice, which is a topic which would take
several lifetimes to address fully. Some do because they're addicted. Some do because they don't have anything else to do. Three downsides: "meth
mouth" = destroyed dentition, with some truly bad lifelong health problems, amphetamine psychosis - mostly transient, relatively rare, and deadly on
the highway, and familial violence which transmits down generations as a contagious disease.
It's also becoming increasingly obvious that road traffic is quite poisonous - particulates, gases, vapors, sounds, and light are all devastating to
the health of humans living near roads. The effects of brake dust, road noise, and excess light are all very bad for humans. Sound and light pollution
contribute in large part to sleep disruption which has been proven to cause dramatic health effects in a substantial subset of the population.
Most - not all - of the bad effects of opiates are the result of prohibition. Again, the effects on other people can be devastating especially in the
context of an obligate auto-dependent age.
Texting while driving has been measured as the equivalent of 0.2% blood alcohol or worse. Even hands-free telephone conversations while driving are
equivalent to something like 0.03-0.05%
So while physical drugs are a significant problem and should be regulated if legal to prevent public accidents, there are many other parts of modern
life which are as detrimental or more and should be regulated with much more severity. Unfortunately, as people have said, the "war on drugs" is an
industry, and the promotion of automobiles, mobile phones, etc., is such a big part of the economy as to be very difficult to restrain.
|
|
|
Vogelzang
Banned
Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Is MDMA blessed?
|
|
|
Rich_Insane
Hazard to Others
Posts: 371
Registered: 24-4-2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Member Is Offline
Mood: alive
|
|
As far as I know, MDMA is a fairly safe drug. It is actually pretty safe for use, but is not harmless. I think that most street ecstasy pills contain
analogs -- very dangerous and unpredicatable ones too. Hell, some pills contain para-methoxyamphetamine, which is extremely neurotoxic. Generally it's
a good idea to eat high sodium food before any sort of high intensity all-night parties. Also drink water, but not an excess.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Better living through chemistry, eh? What is your position on chemistry again? I can't really ever seem to pin it down.
To me, you have actually bolstered the point you are supposed to be opposing.
And the "Elixir Sulfanilamide" argument is far from original. Any new ones in the interest of keeping things fresh?
[Edited on 7-28-2010 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
I'm old enough so that I honestly remember the common production & use of hallucinogens such as LSD. During that period there were a number of
adulterated products sold as LSD, Mescaline, etc. They were a serious risk. One of the largest concerns from my perspective is not the drug per se'
but the fact that by it's very illegality, the production elements will always be in question.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
My sentiments exactly.
I sometimes wonder that, if the U.S. and/or other countries experimented with the legalization of drugs and, by careful monitoring and experiment, it
was determined that, overall, things were better (less people in jail, less violence, less broken homes due to jail, etc...) if Joe Sixpack would
admit then that drugs probably should be legal. I wonder if he/she would still say, "Well, it's just not right and it's against that thar Bible. What
would Jesus do? FREEBIRD!"
Probably. Many things are like that, it seems. It's not the fact that they care about how much people suffer in totality, it's just a
moral/I-just-don't-like-those-people issue. Projecting their will on YOU. Isn't that really what it comes down to for many?
I will delete this message if it causes a shitstorm.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Legalization would cover too much ground & have too many complications but de-criminalization has been attempted (Alaska) without too many
problems.
As to the theological aspects of the issue I don't believe that the Judao-Christian Bible would have issues beyond the genre' of "Sloth", "Gluttony",
& related concepts of man's relationship toward his society, family,& theological obligations. "Drunkenness" (as expressed as intoxication)
becomes a theological issue when it impacts society, our family, & our obligations. Those problems won't go away with Prohibition or the Harrison
Narcotics Act.
The approach to this as a Medical model may be much more productive than a Legal model because we've tried using Legal models to deal with drunkenness
(and since 1914, narcotics as well) & we know that it doesn't bear fruit other than riches for dealers and private "Treatment" programs.
The biggest impediment is that we have a whole network of law enforcement, a whole caste-system of medical providers, & a whole genre of
politicians that make their living off the present system. Some of those have value in other areas and some are simply parasites.
The issue is too complex to compose simple alternatives that don't take into account all the complications of a sweeping change.
Medical ethics questions would need to be addressed & they are seriously tough ones!
Is confidentiality to be maintained? Are self destructive actions to be condoned? What of the parent who is addicted? What of the person in authority
who is addicted? Where is the line between addiction & chronic use? Does an individual have the right to self destruction if his mind is impaired?
The elemental ethics issues are one of the biggest hurdles on a medical level alone.
edit:
I ALSO will delete this message if it is in any way offensive
[Edited on 30-7-2010 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
Vogelzang
Banned
Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Mendel's experiments showed that there apparently was some sort of genetic mechanism responsible for inherited traits. Why is Darwin demonized, but
not Mendel?
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
I thought Darwin was lionised but not demonised. . .
|
|
|
Mister Junk Pile
Hazard to Self
Posts: 70
Registered: 2-7-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"Does an individual have the right to self destruction if his mind is impaired?"
I believe the answer to this question lies in another one:
Is the individual causing direct harm to others?
The issue here then comes from, what is "direct"? Does any sort of indirect harm count? What about emotional harm? Financial?
Like I said before, I feel many get caught up in the irrational side of this debate. Instead of looking at it rationally and logically, they make
their decisions based solely on gut-feelings and knee-jerk reactions. "My brother was addicted to crack and now he's in jail, all drugs are bad".
"My friend OD'd on heroin, therefore, it is impossible for anyone to use such a drug responsibly and we should protect people from themselves". Or
"My aunt was shot by a drug dealer, therefore, drugs should most definitely be illegal and anyone who is caught with them should go to prison for
life".
Have to go. Talk later.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
