Drugs

[dieseltaylor]

You might think I would have known this but new to me is the most dangerous drug is legal:

Hospital emergency room visits for benzodiazepine abuse now dwarf those for illegal street drugs by a more than a three-to-one margin. This trend has been increasing for at least the last five years. In 2006, the U.S. government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration published data showing that prescription drugs that year were the number two reason for ER admissions to hospitals for drug abuse, slightly behind illicit substances like heroin and cocaine. But a survey released by the agency earlier this year claims that benzos, opioids and other prescriptions meds are now responsible for the majority of drug-related hospital visits.

Makes you wince that whilst Mexico and other central american countries are being torn apart by drug trade funded violence the US pharmaceutical industry is churning out legal life destroyers.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151166/america%27s_most_dangerous_pill?page=entire

[smershbloke]

If it was made legal, do you think the drug barons are going to hand over all their production/fields?

I doubt it. They arent going to hand over billions of dollars to a politician.

Then the govt would try and take by force - if they cant conquer them now, then how will they do it if it was legal?

The warfare might even be more terrible. Maybe this is why it is still a stalemate. The other option might be more awful.

[dieseltaylor]

I am not sure from your comments as to whether you have read the article.

However just to look at the drug barons south of the US border. If there is legal farming and production of drugs in the US and distribution through State or Federal shops then might make the economics favourable for the home product, and incidentally fund government revenue shortfalls.

[Affentitten]

Diesel the other difference is that nobody ever got better taking smack or coke. But prescription drugs do have a beneficial function. The problem with our medical system is how much they are prescribed. It's very easy, for example, to get Valium for a bad back. Hard to prove the back isn't sore and so much easier for the doc to write a precription to get you out of his surgery and onto the next patient.

[Spinoza]

nobody ever got better taking smack or coke.

http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com/drugs.htm

pinch of salt

[gunnergoz]

My issue is not with drugs per se, be they alcohol, grass, whatever. My issue is with my fellow citizens who seem to be so enamored of them. Even if they were to get all the drugs they want, without restriction, society would be no better off. In my experience, those who use to get high, (be it alcohol, hard stuff, prescriptions, etc) have a defect of character which interferes with their ability to be fully functional human beings. Humans all make bad judgment calls, act irrationally and against their own and other people's best interests - but never so much as when they are high.

Sure, if you have a medical need, use whatever it takes to deal with it. But if you are simply wishing to indulge yourself, don't pretend it won't affect others, be they co-workers, spouses, children, parents, friends. It will, sooner or later. To say otherwise is to be in denial.

The next time we have a few billion $$ burning a hole in our pockets, I hope that someone does some serious research into the genetic origins and treatments for this so called "addictive personality."

We would have never needed this stupid "War on Drugs" if a certain segment of the population hadn't surrendered and gone over to the other side to begin with.

[Michael Emrys]

Well, one of the main reasons people take up drugs has nothing to do with a so-called "addictive personality"—although I too believe such clearly exist—but with the fact that they are trapped in lives that offer them no obvious path to fulfillment and happiness. Not to say that turning to intoxication is a good choice, but it is an understandable one and I save my harshest criticism for those who so shape society that life appears to be a dead-end, no win alley to so many.

Michael

[Magpie_Oz]

At the end of the day, take drugs or don't take drugs it is the choice we all make.

Alcohol is the number 1 drug that causes most woe and I can go right now to the pub and drink as much as I want until I have to be carried out.

I choose not to, some don't and we each reap the consequences of our choices.

[dieseltaylor]

Affy - lots of people feel better for marijuana. MS sufferers for one group.

But prescription drugs do have a beneficial function. The problem with our medical system is how much they are prescribed.

Significant withdrawals

Drug name Withdrawn Remarks Thalidomide 1950s–1960s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity; returned to market for use in leprosy and multiple myeloma under FDA orphan drug rules Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) 1950s–1960s Marketed as a psychiatric cure-all; withdrawn after it became widely used recreationally Diethylstilbestrol 1970s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity Phenformin and Buformin 1978 Withdrawn because of risk of lactic acidosis Ticrynafen 1982 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatitis Zimelidine 1983 Withdrawn worldwide because of risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome Phenacetin 1983 An ingredient in "A.P.C." tablet; withdrawn because of risk of cancer and kidney disease Methaqualone 1984 Withdrawn because of risk of addiction and overdose Nomifensine (Merital) 1986 Withdrawn because of risk of hemolytic anemia Triazolam 1991 Withdrawn in the United Kingdom because of risk of psychiatric adverse drug reactions. This drug continues to be available in the U.S. Terodiline (Micturin) 1991 Prolonged QT interval Temafloxacin 1992 Withdrawn in the United States because of allergic reactions and cases of hemolytic anemia, leading to three patient deaths.[1]

Flosequinan (Manoplax) 1993 Withdrawn in the United States because of an increased risk of hospitalization or death Alpidem (Ananxyl) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious hepatotoxicity. Chlormezanone (Trancopal) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis Fen-phen (popular combination of fenfluramine and phentermine) 1997 Phentermine remains on the market, dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine – later withdrawn as caused heart valve disorder Tolrestat (Alredase) 1997 Withdrawn because of risk of severe hepatotoxicity Terfenadine (Seldane, Triludan) 1998 Withdrawn because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias; superseded by fexofenadine Mibefradil (Posicor) 1998 Withdrawn because of dangerous interactions with other drugs Etretinate 1990s Risk of birth defects; narrow therapeutic index Tolcapone (Tasmar) 1998 Hepatotoxicity Temazepam (Restoril, Euhypnos, Normison, Remestan, Tenox, Norkotral) 1999 Withdrawn in Sweden and Norway because of diversion, abuse, and a relatively high rate of overdose deaths in comparison to other drugs of its group. This drug continues to be available in most of the world including the U.S., but under strict controls. Astemizole (Hismanal) 1999 Arrhythmias because of interactions with other drugs Grepafloxacin (Raxar) 1999 Prolonged QT interval Troglitazone (Rezulin) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity; superseded by pioglitazone and rosiglitazone Alosetron (Lotronex) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of fatal complications of constipation; reintroduced 2002 on a restricted basis Cisapride (Propulsid) 2000s Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias Amineptine (Survector) 2000 Withdrawn because of hepatotoxicity, dermatological side effects, and abuse potential. Phenylpropanolamine (Propagest, Dexatrim) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of stroke in women under 50 years of age when taken at high doses (75 mg twice daily) for weight loss. Trovafloxacin (Trovan) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of liver failure Cerivastatin (Baycol, Lipobay) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of rhabdomyolysis Rapacuronium (Raplon) 2001 Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of fatal bronchospasm Rofecoxib (Vioxx) 2004 Withdrawn because of risk of myocardial infarction Co-proxamol (Distalgesic) 2004 Withdrawn in the UK due to overdose dangers. mixed amphetamine salts (Adderall XR) 2005 Withdrawn in Canada because of risk of stroke. See Health Canada press release

. The ban was later lifted because the death rate among those taking Adderall XR was determined to be no greater than those not taking Adderall. hydromorphone extended-release (Palladone) 2005 Withdrawn because of a high risk of accidental overdose when administered with alcohol Thioridazine (Melleril) 2005 Withdrawn from U.K. market because of cardiotoxicity Pemoline (Cylert) 2005 Withdrawn from U.S. market because of hepatotoxicity Natalizumab (Tysabri) 2005–2006 Voluntarily withdrawn from U.S. market because of risk of Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Returned to market July, 2006. Ximelagatran (Exanta) 2006 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity (liver damage). Pergolide (Permax) 2007 Voluntarily withdrawn in the U.S. because of the risk of heart valve damage. Still available elsewhere. Tegaserod (Zelnorm) 2007 Withdrawn because of imbalance of cardiovascular ischemic events, including heart attack and stroke. Was available through a restricted access program until April 2008. Aprotinin (Trasylol) 2007 Withdrawn because of increased risk of complications or death; permanently withdrawn in 2008 except for research use Inhaled insulin (Exubera) 2007 Withdrawn in the UK due to poor sales caused by national restrictions on prescribing, doubts over long term safety and too high a cost Lumiracoxib (Prexige) 2007–2008 Progressively withdrawn around the world because of serious side effects, mainly liver damage Rimonabant (Acomplia) 2008 Withdrawn around the world because of risk of severe depression and suicide Efalizumab (Raptiva) 2009 Withdrawn because of increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; to be completely withdrawn from market by June 2009 Sibutramine (Reductil) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe, Australasia, and the U.S. because of increased cardiovascular risk Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) 2010 Withdrawn in the U.S. due to increased risks of veno-occlusive disease and based on results of a clinical trial in which it showed no benefit in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) Rosiglitazone (Avandia) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe because of increased risk of heart attacks and death. This drug continues to be available in the U.S.

And we know that highly addictive legal drugs are being used for complaints that they were not designed for. I have a sneaky suspicion that research into plants for curative potions is neglected deliberately as the product may not be patentable. With a lot of opposition there is this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sativex

On-line I saw 12 doses at £480. Seems quite a laugh that a legalised sativa plant extract is now benefitting from patent protection and can be used whereas people who grow their own can be prosecuted. Fortunately not in all States and countries.

Also I should mention the placebo effect and rigged trials, suppressed evidence etc should not be forgotten when considering the mess we are in in treatment and prescribing medicines.

[gunnergoz]

All I can add to what I said earlier was that I spent 25 years as a probation officer working with adults and juveniles and over 90% of them were committing crimes unrelated to drug or alcohol abuse but simply as an outgrowth of an undisciplined, self-seeking, self-serving lifestyle with absolutely no sense of responsibility towards themselves or others.

That's not to say that every "recreational" user of drugs or alcohol is a criminal, but the frequent abuse of those substances is part and parcel of a lifestyle that places the users needs above all other considerations.

Many of these people came from affluent homes and some did not even need to work. The ones who did work, didn't keep jobs for long. The ones that came from minority or economically distressed communities were part of the problem in their own community, taking no positive actions to better their community or help their neighbors. Instead, they opted for a lifestyle involving not just substance abuse but also violence, theft, drug peddling, etc. All the while it was common for other members of their families to be struggling to maintain the family in food and shelter...all without the help of these users who would not lift a finger to help carry the family's economic burden.

Much of it has to do with a desire to reject "normal" society and its values and substitute them with alternatives that glorify an outlaw lifestyle of crime, drugs and misogyny.

Not every regular substance (drugs, alcohol) abuser is like that but enough of them are and they tend to propagate a toxic lifestyle that has a very negative impact upon families and communities, not to mention putting money into the pockets of the cartels. All so they can justify their highs and tell the straight people to take their workaday world and values and F-off.

We all end up paying tax dollars for their rehabs and overdoses and for the price of their criminal behavior.

[mike_the_wino]

Diesel the other difference is that nobody ever got better taking smack or coke.

Au contraire, mon fraire. To paraphrase a comedian, 'if drugs weren't fun, I wouldn't have taken them'.

Detrimental issues such as addiction aside, the reason people use drugs is that they do make you feel great. Granted, the next day is sometimes a bit fuzzy.

[Michael Emrys]

All I can add to what I said earlier was that I spent 25 years as a probation officer working with adults and juveniles and over 90% of them were committing crimes unrelated to drug or alcohol abuse but simply as an outgrowth of an undisciplined, self-seeking, self-serving lifestyle with absolutely no sense of responsibility towards themselves or others.

Good point. Even if recreational drugs totally did not exist, these people would still constitute serious problems for their communities. On the other hand, most of the people using drugs are not like the ones you describe. So the problem is not with the drugs, but with a certain segment of the population. What is needed is to finally get a handle on why some people become sociopaths and either cure them or isolate them early on so as to limit the damage they cause. Is this even possible? I don't know. But we seem to do a lot of other things that at best work imperfectly. Outlawing recreational drugs makes at least a third of our population de jure criminals but does nothing to seriously impede the availability of drugs.

Michael

[noxnoctum]

Hell I've heard that heroin addicts are switching to Oxycodone cause it hits harder.

The "Drug War" is a joke. Except it's not funny.

If... a "certain person" doesn't win the Republican primaries we're all screwed...

^^And Michael, outlawing drugs if anything makes them easier to get, at least for high schoolers. Everyone knows that in high school it's easier to get your hands on pot than alcohol. For alcohol you at least have to get a decent fake ID, find a corrupt seller, or have an older friend/sibling who's willing to do the deed. For weed you just gotta talk to the guy in the back of the class with the tie-dye t-shirt who'll have a friend who knows somebody.

I gag every time I hear some politician going on about how it's the "gateway drug". These clowns don't seem to realize that the fact that they're keeping it illegal is MAKING it more of gateway drug than it would be otherwise! Not that I agree with the gateway theory in the first place (I've smoked pot quite a few times, and have absolutely zero desire to ever even try coke, meth, heroin etc. and know plenty of stoners who've smoked weed and only weed for years), but making people HAVE to go to a black market dealer to get pot means that they will by default be exposed to the harder stuff. Even if their dealer doesn't have it, he'll likely know someone who does (unless it's just a kid who grows a couple plants in his closet or something).

I don't know whether these politicians are too dumb/shortsighted to see this or whether they just choose to ignore it because they're glorified cash whores. Probably both.

Anyways, there's just too much money involved for even weed to get legalized IMO. I'd like to think it could be, California came close... but so many incredibly rich and powerful people would lose out... I dunno. Anyone who actually came close to getting it legalized on a federal level would probably be assassinated.

And gunnergoz you're just off man. Why the hell should the government or their lackeys have the right to tell me what I can put in my body? You might think that the "ideal life" is to work 40 hours a week until you're 65 then retire with a bunch of money and get to travel the world as a walking corpse... but you shouldn't enforce your values or ideas on others. Besides... plenty of workaholics are also potheads . I mean damn, Steve Jobs said his LSD experiences were some of the most important things he'd done in his life. And that guy's a real slacker .

Regardless, every single one of your arguments could be used to justify the criminalization of television. If you don't think TV has completely screwed up western society then you're in denial. Should we outlaw it then? I can't think of a single other thing (even alcohol) that results in people wasting such enormous amounts of time doing absolutely nothing. At least when you're stoned you can enjoy music, movies etc. in an amazing way or look at various things in a new light. Read "A Brief History of Time" while you're stoned. It'll blow your mind straight off.

The next time we have a few billion $$ burning a hole in our pockets, I hope that someone does some serious research into the genetic origins and treatments for this so called "addictive personality."

We would have never needed this stupid "War on Drugs" if a certain segment of the population hadn't surrendered and gone over to the other side to begin with.

That sounds scarily eugenicsish. And what do you mean by "surrendered"??? Have you ever even smoked grass? Do you know what effect it has on the mind? (and no I'm not asking you to link me to some damn study, I mean first hand experience). The fact that you're automatically labeling every person who indulges in recreational drugs an "abuser" shows your bias already. If it wasn't for all these "abusers" I can assure you, your record collection would seriously, seriously suck .

Next thing you know they'll be outlawing fast food, transfats etc. (it's already starting...)

And then finally I guess the cops will start complaining too . (to be fair there are a decent number of LEO who support the abolition of prohibition)

I just hope the federal government one day gives the right to the states to decide on what drug laws they want to have. All the soulless squares can move to one area and be able to enjoy frequent warmongering, constant video surveillance, and everything remotely dangerous being outlawed. But hey, they'll be "safe"! Meanwhile, all the "a short life and a merry one" people can move to another. And then we can have an area in the middle for people in the middle. It'll be perfect .

If Abraham Lincoln smoked grass so can I dammit !

Alright I'm done, I've ranted about drug prohibition on this forum a few times already . Unless any of you are congressmen it's all for naught .

But seriously, **** the nanny state.

[gunnergoz]

noxnoctum - why would any sane, healthy person want to put substances in their body which alter brain function and have god knows what other effects? This is not simply an issue with drugs or alcohol of course, much of what we consume today is tainted. Given that, why would one wish to give up what shred of sanity or health we have in this crazy world?

BTW, I don't call employment as a civil servant for 25 years (plus 6 in the military and an odd 5-6 in the civilian sector) an "ideal life;" I just called it working for a living. If I supposedly "retired with a bunch of money", why is it I cannot afford to buy a home in California or even to have health insurance for me and my family? Not all local governments pay employees like royalty, but you'd never know that to hear the Tea Baggers and GOP talk.

I especially like the part, "Travel the world like a walking corpse." Sorry, I can't even afford to travel. But that sounds like most drug users I've met, who have no idea what real life is and instead live in their little addled minds, roaming the streets in some sort of desperate zombied fixation for their next fix of whatever it is that replaces joy in their pathetic lives.

In re: enforcing my values or ideas on others, I was paid to enforce the laws - laws I didn't create or always agree with, but that was my job. As for "workaholic potheads" I just hope that I don't have to buy any products they've produced or be subjected to their skills and services, thank you.

Sure I indulged in alcohol excessively as a young man and I see it now as a colossal waste of time, money and spirit. And my advice to those younger who are still questioning what to do with themselves is: life is short, don't blow it blowing your mind.

But if drug and alcohol users OD from "putting what you like into your body" why expect me to pay into the medical bills they will rack up in the publicly funded ER's? When I can't even get affordable medical coverage myself?

Sorry, but it is the collective selfishness of all these self-indulgent, irresponsible people that led to this mess and now the entire society is paying for these people's inclination to place their next high above what is best for everyone else.

[Michael Emrys]

...why would any sane, healthy person want to put substances in their body which alter brain function and have god knows what other effects?

Because it's interesting. Look, I think a lot of our miscommunication here is due to your lumping all drugs together. I'd agree that meth, heroin, coke, and similar substances can be very dangerous and deleterious. But I place psychedelics in a different category and this is an important distinction. For instance, most people who smoke pot do so in moderation. Many people in my personal acquaintance used it for only a specific period of their lives and then gave it up. Most people who have used the stronger psychedelics such as LSD, mescaline, or psilocybin report positive life-changing experiences. Most of them do not become habitual users, but use it only once or a few times. To outlaw these drugs is a pointless infringement of our liberties. People who do abuse these drugs would in any case have found some other ways to screw up their lives.

Michael

[noxnoctum]

noxnoctum - why would any sane, healthy person want to put substances in their body which alter brain function and have god knows what other effects? This is not simply an issue with drugs or alcohol of course, much of what we consume today is tainted. Given that, why would one wish to give up what shred of sanity or health we have in this crazy world?

BTW, I don't call employment as a civil servant for 25 years (plus 6 in the military and an odd 5-6 in the civilian sector) an "ideal life;" I just called it working for a living. If I supposedly "retired with a bunch of money", why is it I cannot afford to buy a home in California or even to have health insurance for me and my family? Not all local governments pay employees like royalty, but you'd never know that to hear the Tea Baggers and GOP talk.

I especially like the part, "Travel the world like a walking corpse." Sorry, I can't even afford to travel. But that sounds like most drug users I've met, who have no idea what real life is and instead live in their little addled minds, roaming the streets in some sort of desperate zombied fixation for their next fix of whatever it is that replaces joy in their pathetic lives.

In re: enforcing my values or ideas on others, I was paid to enforce the laws - laws I didn't create or always agree with, but that was my job. As for "workaholic potheads" I just hope that I don't have to buy any products they've produced or be subjected to their skills and services, thank you.

Sure I indulged in alcohol excessively as a young man and I see it now as a colossal waste of time, money and spirit. And my advice to those younger who are still questioning what to do with themselves is: life is short, don't blow it blowing your mind.

But if drug and alcohol users OD from "putting what you like into your body" why expect me to pay into the medical bills they will rack up in the publicly funded ER's? When I can't even get affordable medical coverage myself?

Sorry, but it is the collective selfishness of all these self-indulgent, irresponsible people that led to this mess and now the entire society is paying for these people's inclination to place their next high above what is best for everyone else.

I was just generalizing to make a point. I'm not saying you're loaded. I know most government employees have terrible wages. I guess I should have put it differently. But what I was trying to get across was that what *you* want to achieve in life is not necessarily the same as what others want to achieve and you just don't have the right to force that on others.

The walking corpse thing was a poke at old age... just a dumb joke. What I'm trying to say is that some like to wait till they're old to be able to sit back and relax... others don't. I'm not saying that people who prefer the former are "inferior" to me. I would never try to impose my values on them. I just don't want them to expect me to follow theirs.

And the strata of drug users you were exposed to was obviously biased since you were a PAROLE OFFICER. What do you expect??? And stop calling other people's lives pathetic. I hate that **** man. Show a little empathy please. (ya ya I know I was talking about the "soulless squares"... again I'm just exagerrating to make a point, was probably a mistake)

And if you knew the "workaholic potheads" I was talking about you'd be shocked. The main 3 I can think of were 21-22 when I knew them and making $50,000 a year in 4 months every summer as part of the sales department of one of ADT's competitors---and they weren't making that money because they were terrible at their job. The rest of the year they goofed off snowboarding, chasing girls, and smoking weed in California and Utah. Very sad life indeed .

As for healthcare... well... when did I EVER say that you should be expected to pay the medical bills of someone who ODs? I didn't did I? Know why? Because I'm a liberterian if you hadn't guessed already :eek:.

Now personally, I believe in helping people who've trashed their lives regardless, but I realize that not all people agree with me and some are more in favor of following the whole "survival of the fittest" line of thinking... so I'm a believer in charity volunteer work. You choose to help others, you're not forced to. Of course it's a two way street. If *you* get cancer, and have to pay tens of thousands in hospital bills then don't expect others to want to pay for it if you've shunned them because they're "lowlifes".

Ideally we could have one state where all the people who agree to "mutual support" could live, and another where it's basically the law of the jungle, but unfortunately that'll never happen. Besides, humanity's rotten to the core so utopia is in any case utterly impossible.

My main issue I guess is with one rotten apple calling another apple more rotten. We all have a putrid odor, just perhaps of different varieties .

And yes you didn't make the laws of course not. But you CHOSE a job where you knew you'd have to enforce them. You've referred to the drug war as "stupid" so why did you take a job where you'd be a participant? Maybe just cause you needed a job and that was the only option that presented itself. I'm not criticizing you for it. But to say that just because you didn't write the laws you're excused from any responsibility is wrong in my opinion.

Anyways, I'm sorry for stirring up this argument (no I'm not being sarcastic). I don't know why I post in debate threads. It's the internet. I always seem to forget... must be all that weed from my past catching up with me .

[noxnoctum]

Because it's interesting. Look, I think a lot of our miscommunication here is due to your lumping all drugs together. I'd agree that meth, heroin, coke, and similar substances can be very dangerous and deleterious. But I place psychedelics in a different category and this is an important distinction. For instance, most people who smoke pot do so in moderation. Many people in my personal acquaintance used it for only a specific period of their lives and then gave it us. Most people who have used the stronger psychedelics such as LSD, mescaline, or psilocybin report positive life-changing experiences. Most of them do not become habitual users, but use it only once or a few times. To outlaw these drugs is a pointless infringement of our liberties. People who do abuse these drugs would in any case have found some other ways to screw up their lives.

Michael

+1 Michael.

And psychedelics all the way baby.

[dieseltaylor]

It seems that actually there is a consensus of sorts here.

The funny one is noxnoctum being the liberterian he is wanting freedom to take whatever he wants. Be it food or drugs. On the face of it that seems fair enough especially if wrapped with a "you do not have to pay for me health" philosophy.

My problem comes from my caring instinct - or social instinct. For instance I know that bad foods, bad drugs, bad environment can hurt people badly. I also now that many people do not understand, cannot comprehend or do not care about such things. Or possibly do care but are unable to do anything about it.

I also believe the deck is stacked against Joe Soap as given the limited amount each day people can assimilate in information the odds are any messages to him are lost in static, fudged information or outright lies.

Now this could be messages about what value foods have, or the legal drugs will sort you out, or the need to have plastic surgery, or new stereo etc. As from a previous post it appears that chemicals are dumbing down IQ levels in the US so perhaps subsiding into happy apathy is OK. However the US leads the way ....

As a social animal I want everyone to be happy and have fulfilled happy lives. That is the Utopia I strive towards. I therefore view corporations who seduce people into unhealthy and unrewarding lifestyles as enemies. They make use of the animal nature of humans - greed , sex, stupidity [as discovered by extensive psychological research] - to get people into a certain lifestyle.

As a liberterian I would of course feel inhibited in suggesting anyone should stop being a gullible fool and wise-up. Well I might suggest it, feel smarter than the pack and observe the decline of civilisation from afar. Unfortunately for me I do actually think a just society is worth striving for.

Therefore:

1. As we already have numerous drugs in society the addition of soft drugs and in a limited form hard drugs is hard to resist on logic or in terms of what it does for diminishing gang power. And structured correctly provides income for the state.

2. Health schemes should be very basic and people pay extra for higher levels of cover. And also can join specific do-good ventures like IVF if they believe it is womens right.

Its a depressing mess.

[noxnoctum]

Ya I should add that I do actually believe in socialized medicine in the European style (so I guess I'm a... leftist liberterian? ) but I can understand gunnergoz and people like him not wanting to help pay for the rehabilitation of "crackheads" or what have you.

I like your idea diesel of having multiple levels of healthcare, that makes sense to me. You can pay more into the system, and in return you have higher coverage, and likewise you can pay less into the system (which gunnergoz would do presumably) and have less coverage, but also don't have to pay for others' health issues as much. Or perhaps even a system where you can pay for absolutely zero coverage, and not have to pay anything into it. I imagine a lot of Americans would go that route... at least until a relative got a serious disease and they ended up having to pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat it.

I've never thought about that before but that does seem like a great idea.

Regardless, the expense of hunting down and incarcerating drug offenders is much higher than the cost of education systems to help people avoid the hard stuff (and that's without even going into the ethics of the whole thing). And I'm not talking about something like DARE (total failure)... the first thing I thought when I smoked that first joint was... "wow... the government had the nerve to lie to me as an innocent 5th grader???"

One thing I gotta say... this is out of the blue but... I've never understood how the Evangelical Christian right wing base could be so adamantly against healthcare. I guess they missed that "And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." part of the bible. Or the blatant socialist activities the early Christians engaged in as described in Acts. Oh well.

It's funny, my parents know some missionaries in Japan and they say that there, if you're an Evangelical Christian, it's assumed that you are a socialist .

Last post, promise . If anyone wants to flame me or whatever just feel free to PM me .

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Diesel the other difference is that nobody ever got better taking smack or coke. But prescription drugs do have a beneficial function.

i get your point and i agree, so what follows is not really related to your point -- i am just abusing it. :/

one really damning thing about drug use is that in the end the mentality of drug use founded the human civilization as we know it.

our civilization is in the end (or beginning) based on the founding of agriculture. everything that followed was more or less just a consequence of agriculture. without agriculture we would all still be "hunter gatherers".

the thing about the founding of agriculture is that it did not begin as a way to create food, but as a way to create alcohol. the use as a source of food came later.

of course it's just a coincidence, but it's nonetheless a funny / depressing fact.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

but I can understand gunnergoz and people like him not wanting to help pay for the rehabilitation of "crackheads" or what have you.

the problem is that drug abuse really does create all sorts of problems. it's not just ODs or rehab. the effect on society is very detrimental.

it's more economical to fix problems before they even become problems. going by "natural selection" is extremely uneconomical. populations (in nature, what ever the species -- be it bacteria or social mammals) do not choose natural selection as long as there are other options left.

legalizing the rest of the drugs does not really solve the problem, as we can see from the use of the drugs that are currently legal. it would remove some of the negative effects, but not nearly all.

still, i think the rational path is the one that begins with legalization. what follows after decades is another matter.

[Stalins Organ]

In these parts I believe the taxes on tobacco earn more than the known health costs from its use (adn are now increased for revenue and deterrance rather than cost recovery), ditto for alcohol, and (not quite in the same vein) petrol taxes pay for more than roading costs.

there is a small black market in tobacco for sure - but it is "policed" by customs & excise rather than by the police per se.

I see no reason why taxes on other drugs can't be set to a simlar "cost recovery" level.

[gunnergoz]

My point about not wanting to pay for the medical care of drug users was simply that everyone deserves medical care as a human right IMO and not just free care for drop-in overdoses in the ER or felons serving time in penal institutions. I'm not at all a fan of privatized insurance companies monopolizing medical care either. I would happily pay taxes for all citizens to have single-payer, essentially Medicare for all, for life. But as long as we have this b@stardized pay-for-care system for ordinary citizens, it galls me that the people taking advantage of what free care is available, are usually those who have paid least into the tax base, if at all.

While my personal encounters with most "serious" drug users were limited to probationers (not parolees, there is a difference) my education in the subject tells me that if you are seriously involved in using drugs over a lifetime, sooner or later you will end up in front of a court and in all likelihood, be placed on probation, or if your conviction involved a large quantity or sales, sent to prison and later released on parole.

I suppose that a strictly liberal interpretation of human rights allows for people to do all sorts of things that have negative consequences...not just substance abuse but overeating, risk-taking, etc. Young people in particular take appalling chances with their lives at times, which in later years (assuming they survive into middle age) many regret or feel sheepish about.

Like others here, I am something of an idealist and the sort of society I'd ideally want to live in would be populated with people that had sense enough not to waste time and health on these unproductive and hazardous behaviors.

"If it turns you on, do it" as a philosophy IMO just is the wrong message to send to youth and this is how much of this behavior is spread...by peer pressure, enthusiastic talk of its appeal and hype from the commercial sector (like the music and film industry) cashing in on what is "hip" and "with it."

If you like to use the stuff, do as you will but don't expect me to respect your conduct even though I may like you as a person. It is not in my better interest as a member of society to promulgate negative behavior by tacitly looking the other way.

[Stalins Organ]

My point about not wanting to pay for the medical care of drug users was simply that everyone deserves medical care as a human right IMO and not just free care for drop-in overdoses in the ER or felons serving time in penal institutions.

I got no problem with that - but given the choice (admittedly limited & artificial but for the sake of discussion....) between paying for the care of addicts, etc., from general taxation with the drugs illegal, or paying from general taxation and with the drugs legal and taxed, or compulsory private insurance with appropraite rates if you are using, or any other method that gives some measure of "cost recovery - IMO the latter means less drain on non-users - whether taxpayers or insurance purchasers.

[Michael Emrys]

Tangentially, "If it feels good, do it," is a pretty good guide 95% of the time. Well, think about all the things that you do during the course of a day and you'll see what I mean. The problem arises when people try to apply that in a simple-minded way that ignores the crucial 5% where more complex considerations apply. Like, if I do that, will it harm some other person? IMHO, most human troubles arise when somebody takes a basically good idea but then runs it into the ground because they can't or won't see when it has ceased being a good idea.

Michael