Drugs weren't criminalized until the early 20th century - 1920s and 1930s I believe. These legal drugs included heroin. Are you implying that in the early part of the 20th century, 60% of the population were addicts?
No. 1920 is not 2007... Drugs can be produced more easily now by many more people (not just the privileged ones who were educated back then), they can be transported to everywhere a billion times easier AND for the most part teenagers etc. didn't find laying around trying drugs as a leisure activity back then either.
Its a slippery slope. Today no drug laws... tomorrow, no laws.
I think its more appropriate and logical to study what drugs do what.. gauge how well people can handle those drugs and be responsible, then change laws accordingly. It seems to me like you're assuming all drugs are "good" and can be handled by everyone without any additional negative consequences.
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
That isn't a valid argument. The light-bulb is a fine little invention, but it wouldn't have been possible without harnessing electricity-150 years ago. I guess we could back to fire and the wheel if you please.
The lightbulb wouldn't have been possible without harnessing electricity. If you want to make the claim that the discovery of electricity is a more important invention than a lightbulb, I'm cool with that.
Lightbulbs haven't changed much over the past 100 years, but medicine has. More notable is the change in the market dominance of pharmaceuticals over the past 25-30 years as a viable stock option, rather than an honest way to improve the health of humans in general. The drugs have hardly changed.
I don't understand why you think the drugs have "hardly changed". Certainly some drugs are not new or modified, but there are dozens of drugs that are completely new, completely different, and very revolutionary. The best selling prescription drugs in this country are by and large recent inventions, most of them by these pharmaceutical companies.
You go ahead and keep blaming the consumer, laugh away. I can't believe you take it so lightly. Half the time I read these posts of yours I think you're trying to make some sort of personal rationale for inheriting your Daddy's company.
:rolleyes:
My "daddy" never had a company, unless a bottle of Scotch is a company.
Blaming the consumer is not difficult here. No one is being forced to buy Viagra or Lipitor. People are choosing these things and those choices go much deeper than advertising, lying, or market dominance.
The lightbulb wouldn't have been possible without harnessing electricity. If you want to make the claim that the discovery of electricity is a more important invention than a lightbulb, I'm cool with that.
I don't understand why you think the drugs have "hardly changed". Certainly some drugs are not new or modified, but there are dozens of drugs that are completely new, completely different, and very revolutionary. The best selling prescription drugs in this country are by and large recent inventions, most of them by these pharmaceutical companies.
:rolleyes:
My "daddy" never had a company, unless a bottle of Scotch is a company.
Blaming the consumer is not difficult here. No one is being forced to buy Viagra or Lipitor. People are choosing these things and those choices go much deeper than advertising, lying, or market dominance.
You can divide my post up all you want, but I don't find any wisdom in your rationale that marketing lightbulbs and marketing drugs are on a par with each other. They are two completely different things.
You can divide my post up all you want, but I don't find any wisdom in your rationale that marketing lightbulbs and marketing drugs are on a par with each other. They are two completely different things.
Yet, the problem is, the Pharms don't think so. And neither do you, FFG, so I have a problem with you.
You can divide my post up all you want, but I don't find any wisdom in your rationale that marketing lightbulbs and marketing drugs are on a par with each other. They are two completely different things.
Completely different how? Certainly lightbulbs and medicine are not the same thing. Furthermore, one medicine and another medicine are not the same thing. But all are products made by corporations for sale on a market. Those sales are supported by avertisements which can be truthful, untruthful or a mixture of both. In other words, there are many similarities here.
You brought all this up with this statement:
"Most of those ridiculous drugs we see advertised on television today are nothing more than slightly altered drugs that have been around for years and years."
What was that supposed to demonstrate then? Many products have been around for years and years. Would you have been happier if I mentioned stethoscopes instead of lightbulbs?
No. 1920 is not 2007... Drugs can be produced more easily now by many more people (not just the privileged ones who were educated back then), they can be transported to everywhere a billion times easier AND for the most part teenagers etc. didn't find laying around trying drugs as a leisure activity back then either.
Its a slippery slope. Today no drug laws... tomorrow, no laws.
I think its more appropriate and logical to study what drugs do what.. gauge how well people can handle those drugs and be responsible, then change laws accordingly. It seems to me like you're assuming all drugs are "good" and can be handled by everyone without any additional negative consequences.
it's not a slippery slope at all. it's smart policy. nobody here is assuming these drugs are good. we're saying banning them is not working and it's stupid and if people want to get mixed up in the bad drugs, it's their call. if we didnt have to waste our police officers' time with shaking down teenagers carrying a joint in their pocket, or a few hours filling out paperwork becos they found a junkie laying in the street with a gram in a baggie and had to haul him in, maybe they'd have more time to focus on stopping the fucked up crackheads from breaking into your house to kill you?
it was much easier for me to get illegal drugs than it was for me to alcohol. legalizing drugs is not going to do anything but allow us, as a society, to bring illegal drugs under careful regulation, rather than the violent freewheeling market out there now. just becos something is legal doesn't mean kids will do it. education has done wonders for reducing smoking. there's no reason to think real education about drug abuse could not be effective if we remove the ridiculous bullshit myths people like you buy into without question.
so you're a nurse... have you BEEN to rehab? cos i have. i've lived with these people and spoken to them about their stories. and the sky would not start falling if this stuff was legal. but maybe we could get these people into rehab instead of jail.
prohibition didnt do anything to reduce alcohol abuse and only increased the amount of violent crime in society as alcohol sales were controlled by gangsters with no interest in selling legally or only to responsible adults. prohibition is not working for other drugs either. it's creating new problems, and doing nothing to affect or reduce old ones.
I'm not a nurse. I've an EMT for years, my girlfriend is a nurse at a major hospital in Pennsylvania and my sister has her Masters degree in clinical psychology and works at a major rehab facility. Hell, she may have even had a hand in rehabbing you.
and you argument on education.... holds little water. Tobacco education has been going on for at least as long as I've been alive... and kids STILL do it. A majority of kids are going to go experience something for themselves despite education on it. So I think there are many more negatives and much more SEVERE negatives to kids "experimenting" with tobacco and messing around with HARD drugs.
Also, I agree to some extent that drug lords and all are harming people and all that argument you are making. But again, don't compare things like alcohol to HARD DRUGS... most adults can be responsible enough to choose not to drink alcohol... or not go nuts with it... but alcohol is not heroin or cocaine...
i think people like you who come up with bullshit ideas to legalize everything and anything on this planet have too much faith in man's ability to control himself. If humans could control themselves in the same way you seem to think you have total control over what you do then no one would be fat because everyone would be able to just stop eating like a pig, there would be no drug addicts because people could just quit. etc. To a degree, man needs things such as laws to save him from himself.
Again, I'm all for laws being changed or new laws created or revoked... but essentially you're arguing for no kinds of laws what-so-ever.
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
Again, I'm all for laws being changed or new laws created or revoked... but essentially you're arguing for no kinds of laws what-so-ever.
This is silly. One could just flip this logic around and accuse you of arguing for martial law.
The purpose of law isn't to protect you from yourself. The purpose of law is to protect your rights. You have no right to a society free of drugs, nor do you have a right to a society free of drug adicts. Everything you're proposing is simply a benefit, coming to you at the cost of another's actual rights.
it's not a slippery slope at all. it's smart policy. nobody here is assuming these drugs are good. we're saying banning them is not working and it's stupid and if people want to get mixed up in the bad drugs, it's their call. if we didnt have to waste our police officers' time with shaking down teenagers carrying a joint in their pocket, or a few hours filling out paperwork becos they found a junkie laying in the street with a gram in a baggie and had to haul him in, maybe they'd have more time to focus on stopping the fucked up crackheads from breaking into your house to kill you?
I completely understand what you are saying... and like I have been saying, I agree to a point.
Hard drugs are a whole other league compared to tobacco or even alcohol. If these hard drugs were legal, then it would give more people the opportunity to try them and hence increasing the likely hood of addiction and again, the more people will ruin their lives and most likely negatively effect the lives of people around them. Times that by N and it turns out to be a big ol' problem.
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
Also, I agree to some extent that drug lords and all are harming people and all that argument you are making. But again, don't compare things like alcohol to HARD DRUGS... most adults can be responsible enough to choose not to drink alcohol... or not go nuts with it... but alcohol is not heroin or cocaine...
i think people like you who come up with bullshit ideas to legalize everything and anything on this planet have too much faith in man's ability to control himself. If humans could control themselves in the same way you seem to think you have total control over what you do then no one would be fat because everyone would be able to just stop eating like a pig, there would be no drug addicts because people could just quit. etc. To a degree, man needs things such as laws to save him from himself.
Again, I'm all for laws being changed or new laws created or revoked... but essentially you're arguing for no kinds of laws what-so-ever.
no, im arguing against laws that protect people from themselves. i have little faith in man's ability to control themselves. but i do have faith darwinism works and that the dregs of society can be weeded out. you want to od, knock yourself out. not my problem. you break into my house... you should be arrested for breaking into my house, i dont give a shit if you were high on heroin, starbucks, or jesus when you did it. what matters is you did it, not why. i dont think we should outlaw mcdonald's either just becos people get fat and die of heart disease from it. you want to make dumb decisions, it's your choice. if it kills you, tough shit.
adults can drink responsibly, but most dont. look at dui laws and rates of alcoholism. heroin would be no different. the only reason it IS different is becos it is illegal and thus dealers can drive addicts to the utmost of desperation trying to get their next fix, which may never come. you give them a steady supply, and most will be no different than alcoholics: some wont use at all, some will use in moderation, some will have problems and lose jobs becos of their use, and some will die. so it goes.
and dont tell me about the kids. alcohol and nicotine have worse affects on youth. nicotine stunts growth and alcohol causes brain damage. medically speaking, heroin is comparatively tame as long as you don't overdose... and if quality was controlled, that would be pretty easy to avoid. and people still od from drinking.
Completely different how? Certainly lightbulbs and medicine are not the same thing. Furthermore, one medicine and another medicine are not the same thing. But all are products made by corporations for sale on a market. Those sales are supported by avertisements which can be truthful, untruthful or a mixture of both. In other words, there are many similarities here.
You brought all this up with this statement:
"Most of those ridiculous drugs we see advertised on television today are nothing more than slightly altered drugs that have been around for years and years."
What was that supposed to demonstrate then? Many products have been around for years and years. Would you have been happier if I mentioned stethoscopes instead of lightbulbs?
There is a problem with corporations when the interest in the consumer sinks below the value of the product for the consumer.
I completely understand what you are saying... and like I have been saying, I agree to a point.
Hard drugs are a whole other league compared to tobacco or even alcohol. If these hard drugs were legal, then it would give more people the opportunity to try them and hence increasing the likely hood of addiction and again, the more people will ruin their lives and most likely negatively effect the lives of people around them. Times that by N and it turns out to be a big ol' problem.
no, it would not. like i said, it was alays easier to get illegal drugs, cos dealers target younger people. kroger doesn't wanna risk losing their alcohol license. alcohol ruins plenty of lives and causes plenty of addiciton. the only reason it SEEMS like heroin does more is becos the only people trying to get it are desperate and already addicted. the people who would use responsibly aren't willing to touch it. cigarettes are more addictive than heroin.
i would much rather our police focused on arresting people who commit crimes against their fellow citizens than people who choose to pollute their bodies. the latter is their business. the former is mine.
This is silly. One could just flip this logic around and accuse you of arguing for martial law.
The purpose of law isn't to protect you from yourself. The purpose of law is to protect your rights. You have no right to a society free of drugs, nor do you have a right to a society free of drug adicts. Everything you're proposing is simply a benefit, coming to you at the cost of another's actual rights.
Laws protect our rights because humans are too big of shit heads to control themselves and not do things that harm others or infringe on their rights.
If dumb asses didn't drink and drive then there would be no law against that. If creeps weren't attracted to 10 year olds and try to nail them then there wouldn't be laws against that. If humans could control all urges and be responsible then the world would be grand... sadly, humans can't do that, they can be assholes, shit faces, dumb asses... thats why there are laws there...
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
There is a problem with corporations when the interest in the consumer sinks below the value of the product for the consumer.
How so?
Well, in the case of the pharmaceuticals, although there have been a couple of new products to come out that have been beneficial, there is the fact that research and development takes a stagnant place in priority to the profitibilty of marketing the same old drugs in a different package. It is misleading to the consumer, and in some cases the consumer doesn't have a choice.
Laws protect our rights because humans are too big of shit heads to control themselves and not do things that harm others or infringe on their rights.
If dumb asses didn't drink and drive then there would be no law against that. If creeps weren't attracted to 10 year olds and try to nail them then there wouldn't be laws against that. If humans could control all urges and be responsible then the world would be grand... sadly, humans can't do that, they can be assholes, shit faces, dumb asses... thats why there are laws there...
so let's choose our battles. if your urges only hurt yourself, have fine letting them kill you. that way we can focus our limited resources at stopping the people whose urges hurt others.
no, im arguing against laws that protect people from themselves. i have little faith in man's ability to control themselves. but i do have faith darwinism works and that the dregs of society can be weeded out. you want to od, knock yourself out. not my problem. you break into my house... you should be arrested for breaking into my house, i dont give a shit if you were high on heroin, starbucks, or jesus when you did it. what matters is you did it, not why. i dont think we should outlaw mcdonald's either just becos people get fat and die of heart disease from it. you want to make dumb decisions, it's your choice. if it kills you, tough shit.
adults can drink responsibly, but most dont. look at dui laws and rates of alcoholism. heroin would be no different. the only reason it IS different is becos it is illegal and thus dealers can drive addicts to the utmost of desperation trying to get their next fix, which may never come. you give them a steady supply, and most will be no different than alcoholics: some wont use at all, some will use in moderation, some will have problems and lose jobs becos of their use, and some will die. so it goes.
and dont tell me about the kids. alcohol and nicotine have worse affects on youth. nicotine stunts growth and alcohol causes brain damage. medically speaking, heroin is comparatively tame as long as you don't overdose... and if quality was controlled, that would be pretty easy to avoid. and people still od from drinking.
You make good points. You're not converting me, I still believe what I believe but you may be on to something...
At least i can admit that some of my views aren't necessarily the best or correct.
Maybe thats why I'm not president....
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
A number of studies have showed that the people who abuse the prescription drugs (Vicodin, Percocet, etc...) are more adversely affected by the Tylenol in them than the actual opiate. I think big pharm did their best to bury this but it keeps popping up from time to time.
Hopefully our leaders and policymakers will one day come to the logical conclusion that moderation is the key in all things and that we cannot continue to legislate personal choice/morality issues like these. Not holding my breath on this but I guess it's possible.
It seems that a lot of people are shocked to find out about this, but many of these drugs were developed to treat medical conditions. You also have to consider the timeframe as well, you're talking turn of the century for heroin.
Heroin is an opiate analgesic, in the U.S. we have numerous alternatives (morphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxycodone, methadone) that have essentially displaced heroin from medical use. I am not positive, but I believe heroin may still be used medically in other countries (Europe, Australia?).
The medical use of LSD in the late '60s is fairly well documented. It's clinical use has long been abandoned.
To this day, we continue to use cocaine in hospitals in surgical and ophthamologic procedures (not snorted as you are probably imagining).
Drugs are continuously being developed that appear promising initially, but after prolonged experience (even after FDA approval in some instances) are proven to be undesireable for clinical use. Consider Vioxx, Baycol, Rezulin, along with many others.
I guess I just don't think this should be a big surprise. And no, I do not work for the pharmaceutical industry.
A number of studies have showed that the people who abuse the prescription drugs (Vicodin, Percocet, etc...) are more adversely affected by the Tylenol in them than the actual opiate. I think big pharm did their best to bury this but it keeps popping up from time to time.
Hopefully our leaders and policymakers will one day come to the logical conclusion that moderation is the key in all things and that we cannot continue to legislate personal choice/morality issues like these. Not holding my breath on this but I guess it's possible.
Never take Tylenol (acetaminophen) for a hangover, or before bed after a night of drinking to avoid a hangover. No need to attack your liver from two fronts.
Though it may lead to stomach bleeding, asprin is better.
Or take an opiate the next morning (don't do it the night of). If it's not cut with acetaminophen, and you're not an addict, you'll have little to worry about.
so which are you arguing here? heroin shouldnt be illegal but it is becos the big bad evil pharma companies dont want competition? or heroin should be illegal becos it's a product of the big bad evil pharma companies?
you're not making sense. there's no logic to this post aside from more "evil corporations" nonsense rhetoric. the points are contradictory. it's a sign of evil the heroin is illegal, but it's crazy for it to be legal. dont be ridiculous.
and when was the last time liquor companies got sued over a student dying on his 21st or someone ending up in aa? why would legal heroin be any different?
Huh? I think heroin is illegal for obvious reasons. That doesn't take away from the point of the article which is that the Pharma industry makes drugs that are more dangerous and addicting than those that are illegal (and also more safe in some cases). I wasn't ever saying heroin being illegal was part of my problem with the Pharm companies. My problem is they are all about the war on drugs because they want you buying their shit all the while tauting the dangers of the illegal ones. The heroin is just showing the kind of shit they come up with that isn't safe and yet they push it anyways until they no longer can. It about how they, themselves, make these very potent drugs and claim to be against others. The only reason they give a shit is because the money isn't going into their pockets and that is bullshit! I'm not addressing 'evil' here...it's greed and the fucked up priorites that go along with it. I don't believe in evil...just very different points of views about what is most important.
If they could find a way to make money off heroin and not have all the bad PR and liabilities that would come with it, they would. These are drug companies...it's not the same as selling alcohol that doctors advise to take in moderation and talk about it's dangers all the time. They have to be selling heroin as helpful and safe for patients. I don't think that would go over too well knowing the effects of the drug. Look at the class actions against cigarettes. Now tell me that they can sell and doctors are going to prescribe a drug like heroin and pretend it's helping someone.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
My 30- year pharmaceutical history:
maybe 6-10 aspirins average over the course of a year.
antibiotics twice (1983 and 1996) for strep throat.
Lots of alcohol.
medically speaking, heroin is comparatively tame as long as you don't overdose... and if quality was controlled, that would be pretty easy to avoid. and people still od from drinking.
I think stating that heroin is "tame" is very very inaccurate.
Also, quality control, as you put it, would likely do little to prevent "overdosages." I agree that quality control would assure the purity of the heroin and prevent it from containing dangerous excipients or additional drugs/toxins that are often associated with adverse events. Quality control would also make all sources of heroin comparable on a mg to mg basis.
That said, unless the use of heroin was managed by a medical professional, overdoses would still be a major issue. "Patients" would continue to escalate their dose as tolerance developed. I can't think of too may physicians that would be willing to supervise maintained narcotic addiction (Don't even compare this to methadone maintenance programs either - whole other topic).
You say "people still od from drinking." Do you not consider alcohol to be quality controlled? How then would quality control of heroin prevent overdoses?
Laws protect our rights because humans are too big of shit heads to control themselves and not do things that harm others or infringe on their rights.
If dumb asses didn't drink and drive then there would be no law against that. If creeps weren't attracted to 10 year olds and try to nail them then there wouldn't be laws against that. If humans could control all urges and be responsible then the world would be grand... sadly, humans can't do that, they can be assholes, shit faces, dumb asses... thats why there are laws there...
If the dominant standard for the justification of law becomes "assholse", "shit face", and "dumb ass", a country of drug addicts is going to be the least of your problems.
If the dominant standard for the justification of law becomes "assholse", "shit face", and "dumb ass", a country of drug addicts is going to be the least of your problems.
That was kind of funny.
How come you haven't answered to any of my replies to you, though?
im not following your logic here. heroin was an evil thing invented by evil people. then they were SO evil they wouldnt sell it anymore becos it was being taxed. now they're so evil they outlaw it so there's less competition? in their spare time do they kick puppies or something? are they responsible for pedophilia too?
i thought you blamed pedophilia type behavior on alcohol?
you would see why they made it illegal. who said anything about 'evil'?? you can be so naive from your hate and anger, have you ever considered dropping all the negativity?
when they started pushing it they didn't realize it was like 3 times stonger than morphine when the liver got a hold of it...there was an explosion of addicts from it and after it became illegal w/o a prescription, doctors compalining about its effects
where does 'big bad evil pharma companies kicking puppies' or any of that shit come in????
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
If the dominant standard for the justification of law becomes "assholse", "shit face", and "dumb ass", a country of drug addicts is going to be the least of your problems.
I think you like to argue for the sake of it.
If you have sex with a 11 year old... yes, sir, you are a shit head.
Good day
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
Every time I re-read the initial article I find more inaccuracies. I'd like to know where Mr. Adams gets his info as no references were included. I especially like how when you click on a link in the article it redirects you to the exact same article, that is brilliant!
1. I'd like to see the statistics that show the "millions of military personal" from WWII addicted to methamphetamines. I bet the same people counted the protestors at the million man march.
2. Adams says "meth is made from ingredients found in over-the-counter cold medicines." I guess he couldn't research which ingredient. The author also criticizes "big pharma" and legislators for not listing these cold medicines as controlled substances. However, most states require any product with pseudoephedrine to be kept behind the pharmacy counter, the quatity sold is limited (it takes a lot to make a batch of meth), and a record of the sale and customer information is kept. As far as I am concerened, that seems like legislation to limit availability of the ingedient.
3. "Ritalin is speed for children" - gross generalization. Ritalin is a stimulant used to treat ADHD and I agree that it is over prescribed, but have also seen it be very effective in helping patients. I would also like to know exactly which drug company invented "brain chemistry condition" as the author terms it.
I am not a fan of the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. by any means, but Mr. Adams' propaganda is nothing but a joke.
Comments
No. 1920 is not 2007... Drugs can be produced more easily now by many more people (not just the privileged ones who were educated back then), they can be transported to everywhere a billion times easier AND for the most part teenagers etc. didn't find laying around trying drugs as a leisure activity back then either.
Its a slippery slope. Today no drug laws... tomorrow, no laws.
I think its more appropriate and logical to study what drugs do what.. gauge how well people can handle those drugs and be responsible, then change laws accordingly. It seems to me like you're assuming all drugs are "good" and can be handled by everyone without any additional negative consequences.
The Sentence Above Is False
The lightbulb wouldn't have been possible without harnessing electricity. If you want to make the claim that the discovery of electricity is a more important invention than a lightbulb, I'm cool with that.
I don't understand why you think the drugs have "hardly changed". Certainly some drugs are not new or modified, but there are dozens of drugs that are completely new, completely different, and very revolutionary. The best selling prescription drugs in this country are by and large recent inventions, most of them by these pharmaceutical companies.
:rolleyes:
My "daddy" never had a company, unless a bottle of Scotch is a company.
Blaming the consumer is not difficult here. No one is being forced to buy Viagra or Lipitor. People are choosing these things and those choices go much deeper than advertising, lying, or market dominance.
You can divide my post up all you want, but I don't find any wisdom in your rationale that marketing lightbulbs and marketing drugs are on a par with each other. They are two completely different things.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yet, the problem is, the Pharms don't think so. And neither do you, FFG, so I have a problem with you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Completely different how? Certainly lightbulbs and medicine are not the same thing. Furthermore, one medicine and another medicine are not the same thing. But all are products made by corporations for sale on a market. Those sales are supported by avertisements which can be truthful, untruthful or a mixture of both. In other words, there are many similarities here.
You brought all this up with this statement:
"Most of those ridiculous drugs we see advertised on television today are nothing more than slightly altered drugs that have been around for years and years."
What was that supposed to demonstrate then? Many products have been around for years and years. Would you have been happier if I mentioned stethoscopes instead of lightbulbs?
it's not a slippery slope at all. it's smart policy. nobody here is assuming these drugs are good. we're saying banning them is not working and it's stupid and if people want to get mixed up in the bad drugs, it's their call. if we didnt have to waste our police officers' time with shaking down teenagers carrying a joint in their pocket, or a few hours filling out paperwork becos they found a junkie laying in the street with a gram in a baggie and had to haul him in, maybe they'd have more time to focus on stopping the fucked up crackheads from breaking into your house to kill you?
I'm not a nurse. I've an EMT for years, my girlfriend is a nurse at a major hospital in Pennsylvania and my sister has her Masters degree in clinical psychology and works at a major rehab facility. Hell, she may have even had a hand in rehabbing you.
and you argument on education.... holds little water. Tobacco education has been going on for at least as long as I've been alive... and kids STILL do it. A majority of kids are going to go experience something for themselves despite education on it. So I think there are many more negatives and much more SEVERE negatives to kids "experimenting" with tobacco and messing around with HARD drugs.
Also, I agree to some extent that drug lords and all are harming people and all that argument you are making. But again, don't compare things like alcohol to HARD DRUGS... most adults can be responsible enough to choose not to drink alcohol... or not go nuts with it... but alcohol is not heroin or cocaine...
i think people like you who come up with bullshit ideas to legalize everything and anything on this planet have too much faith in man's ability to control himself. If humans could control themselves in the same way you seem to think you have total control over what you do then no one would be fat because everyone would be able to just stop eating like a pig, there would be no drug addicts because people could just quit. etc. To a degree, man needs things such as laws to save him from himself.
Again, I'm all for laws being changed or new laws created or revoked... but essentially you're arguing for no kinds of laws what-so-ever.
The Sentence Above Is False
This is silly. One could just flip this logic around and accuse you of arguing for martial law.
The purpose of law isn't to protect you from yourself. The purpose of law is to protect your rights. You have no right to a society free of drugs, nor do you have a right to a society free of drug adicts. Everything you're proposing is simply a benefit, coming to you at the cost of another's actual rights.
I completely understand what you are saying... and like I have been saying, I agree to a point.
Hard drugs are a whole other league compared to tobacco or even alcohol. If these hard drugs were legal, then it would give more people the opportunity to try them and hence increasing the likely hood of addiction and again, the more people will ruin their lives and most likely negatively effect the lives of people around them. Times that by N and it turns out to be a big ol' problem.
The Sentence Above Is False
no, im arguing against laws that protect people from themselves. i have little faith in man's ability to control themselves. but i do have faith darwinism works and that the dregs of society can be weeded out. you want to od, knock yourself out. not my problem. you break into my house... you should be arrested for breaking into my house, i dont give a shit if you were high on heroin, starbucks, or jesus when you did it. what matters is you did it, not why. i dont think we should outlaw mcdonald's either just becos people get fat and die of heart disease from it. you want to make dumb decisions, it's your choice. if it kills you, tough shit.
adults can drink responsibly, but most dont. look at dui laws and rates of alcoholism. heroin would be no different. the only reason it IS different is becos it is illegal and thus dealers can drive addicts to the utmost of desperation trying to get their next fix, which may never come. you give them a steady supply, and most will be no different than alcoholics: some wont use at all, some will use in moderation, some will have problems and lose jobs becos of their use, and some will die. so it goes.
and dont tell me about the kids. alcohol and nicotine have worse affects on youth. nicotine stunts growth and alcohol causes brain damage. medically speaking, heroin is comparatively tame as long as you don't overdose... and if quality was controlled, that would be pretty easy to avoid. and people still od from drinking.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
no, it would not. like i said, it was alays easier to get illegal drugs, cos dealers target younger people. kroger doesn't wanna risk losing their alcohol license. alcohol ruins plenty of lives and causes plenty of addiciton. the only reason it SEEMS like heroin does more is becos the only people trying to get it are desperate and already addicted. the people who would use responsibly aren't willing to touch it. cigarettes are more addictive than heroin.
i would much rather our police focused on arresting people who commit crimes against their fellow citizens than people who choose to pollute their bodies. the latter is their business. the former is mine.
Laws protect our rights because humans are too big of shit heads to control themselves and not do things that harm others or infringe on their rights.
If dumb asses didn't drink and drive then there would be no law against that. If creeps weren't attracted to 10 year olds and try to nail them then there wouldn't be laws against that. If humans could control all urges and be responsible then the world would be grand... sadly, humans can't do that, they can be assholes, shit faces, dumb asses... thats why there are laws there...
The Sentence Above Is False
How so?
Well, in the case of the pharmaceuticals, although there have been a couple of new products to come out that have been beneficial, there is the fact that research and development takes a stagnant place in priority to the profitibilty of marketing the same old drugs in a different package. It is misleading to the consumer, and in some cases the consumer doesn't have a choice.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
so let's choose our battles. if your urges only hurt yourself, have fine letting them kill you. that way we can focus our limited resources at stopping the people whose urges hurt others.
You make good points. You're not converting me, I still believe what I believe but you may be on to something...
At least i can admit that some of my views aren't necessarily the best or correct.
Maybe thats why I'm not president....
The Sentence Above Is False
Hopefully our leaders and policymakers will one day come to the logical conclusion that moderation is the key in all things and that we cannot continue to legislate personal choice/morality issues like these. Not holding my breath on this but I guess it's possible.
Heroin is an opiate analgesic, in the U.S. we have numerous alternatives (morphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxycodone, methadone) that have essentially displaced heroin from medical use. I am not positive, but I believe heroin may still be used medically in other countries (Europe, Australia?).
The medical use of LSD in the late '60s is fairly well documented. It's clinical use has long been abandoned.
To this day, we continue to use cocaine in hospitals in surgical and ophthamologic procedures (not snorted as you are probably imagining).
Drugs are continuously being developed that appear promising initially, but after prolonged experience (even after FDA approval in some instances) are proven to be undesireable for clinical use. Consider Vioxx, Baycol, Rezulin, along with many others.
I guess I just don't think this should be a big surprise. And no, I do not work for the pharmaceutical industry.
Though it may lead to stomach bleeding, asprin is better.
Or take an opiate the next morning (don't do it the night of). If it's not cut with acetaminophen, and you're not an addict, you'll have little to worry about.
Huh? I think heroin is illegal for obvious reasons. That doesn't take away from the point of the article which is that the Pharma industry makes drugs that are more dangerous and addicting than those that are illegal (and also more safe in some cases). I wasn't ever saying heroin being illegal was part of my problem with the Pharm companies. My problem is they are all about the war on drugs because they want you buying their shit all the while tauting the dangers of the illegal ones. The heroin is just showing the kind of shit they come up with that isn't safe and yet they push it anyways until they no longer can. It about how they, themselves, make these very potent drugs and claim to be against others. The only reason they give a shit is because the money isn't going into their pockets and that is bullshit! I'm not addressing 'evil' here...it's greed and the fucked up priorites that go along with it. I don't believe in evil...just very different points of views about what is most important.
If they could find a way to make money off heroin and not have all the bad PR and liabilities that would come with it, they would. These are drug companies...it's not the same as selling alcohol that doctors advise to take in moderation and talk about it's dangers all the time. They have to be selling heroin as helpful and safe for patients. I don't think that would go over too well knowing the effects of the drug. Look at the class actions against cigarettes. Now tell me that they can sell and doctors are going to prescribe a drug like heroin and pretend it's helping someone.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
maybe 6-10 aspirins average over the course of a year.
antibiotics twice (1983 and 1996) for strep throat.
Lots of alcohol.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think stating that heroin is "tame" is very very inaccurate.
Also, quality control, as you put it, would likely do little to prevent "overdosages." I agree that quality control would assure the purity of the heroin and prevent it from containing dangerous excipients or additional drugs/toxins that are often associated with adverse events. Quality control would also make all sources of heroin comparable on a mg to mg basis.
That said, unless the use of heroin was managed by a medical professional, overdoses would still be a major issue. "Patients" would continue to escalate their dose as tolerance developed. I can't think of too may physicians that would be willing to supervise maintained narcotic addiction (Don't even compare this to methadone maintenance programs either - whole other topic).
You say "people still od from drinking." Do you not consider alcohol to be quality controlled? How then would quality control of heroin prevent overdoses?
If the dominant standard for the justification of law becomes "assholse", "shit face", and "dumb ass", a country of drug addicts is going to be the least of your problems.
That was kind of funny.
How come you haven't answered to any of my replies to you, though?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i thought you blamed pedophilia type behavior on alcohol?
anyway, if you read my 2nd post
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4317518&postcount=9
you would see why they made it illegal. who said anything about 'evil'?? you can be so naive from your hate and anger, have you ever considered dropping all the negativity?
when they started pushing it they didn't realize it was like 3 times stonger than morphine when the liver got a hold of it...there was an explosion of addicts from it and after it became illegal w/o a prescription, doctors compalining about its effects
where does 'big bad evil pharma companies kicking puppies' or any of that shit come in????
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i also smoke marijuana but i do not consider that a drug, it is simply a plant that when ingested provides a "high"
Comeback of the Year.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think you like to argue for the sake of it.
If you have sex with a 11 year old... yes, sir, you are a shit head.
Good day
The Sentence Above Is False
1. I'd like to see the statistics that show the "millions of military personal" from WWII addicted to methamphetamines. I bet the same people counted the protestors at the million man march.
2. Adams says "meth is made from ingredients found in over-the-counter cold medicines." I guess he couldn't research which ingredient. The author also criticizes "big pharma" and legislators for not listing these cold medicines as controlled substances. However, most states require any product with pseudoephedrine to be kept behind the pharmacy counter, the quatity sold is limited (it takes a lot to make a batch of meth), and a record of the sale and customer information is kept. As far as I am concerened, that seems like legislation to limit availability of the ingedient.
3. "Ritalin is speed for children" - gross generalization. Ritalin is a stimulant used to treat ADHD and I agree that it is over prescribed, but have also seen it be very effective in helping patients. I would also like to know exactly which drug company invented "brain chemistry condition" as the author terms it.
I am not a fan of the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. by any means, but Mr. Adams' propaganda is nothing but a joke.