All drugs should be legal
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
Could be thinking is the problem with music. It is good music if you like it (but don't expect full agreement from anyone on what is on your list of good music). I used to choose complicated music to learn, and avoided the songs with "only" 3 or 4 chords. More recently I found incredible joy playing some of those simple songs (eg Nutbush City Limits, Sweet Child o' Mine) in a band.
'Do you stand outside office buildings at 9am on a Monday morning, smoking a Camberwell carrot, looking at the office workers cowering in their corners smoking those fags?'
Not exactly - I try to get in the office before lighting up. Or I sit in a park near my home, where I have a good vantage point from which to see the lines of yes-men heading to the city.
'I'm in favour of the high taxes on cigarettes and I'm not in favour of making the funding of the health service something that people can opt out of.'
I agree.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
I suggest a less pessimistic conclusion: Machine people, by ruining the world in an increasingly obvious way, will catalyse the efforts of an increasing number of disaffected people to unleash their creative capabilities.Greta wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 8:29 pmIt's the usual problem, people not accepting human diversity in complex societies that only survive by virtue of diversity. So, whole different people respond differently to different stimuli, and then a majority imposes its will on the others. We can see how well the War on Drugs is working out, how out of step with human nature it is.Robert66 wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 3:01 pm Greta: 'Some people simply don't like smoking and want anything they dislike to be banned. This is exactly why I like philosophical thought - to get away from such unreason.
People don't like the smoke, the smell, the ash or the perceived character weakness ('I don't need smoking to get by so neither should anyone else'). Much of such objections appear to stem from the joy of self-righteous w@nking.'
And some people simply like smoking - also a problem. I am one of them. I especially like to smoke a big joint at 9am on Monday. I always smile and say hello to people cowering in stinky corners with their guilt-laden fags, and I always glare back at the self-righteous wankers, or pull a face at them, and yell "I hope you paid your fresh air tax".
Sadly, human nature is on the way out, as we are being out-competed by machines and those who are more machinelike than we are, ie. those who are more locked into convention, more obedient to authority, less creatively inclined, less mercurial etc.
These days I am periodically damned by the self righteous (sometimes aggressively) for walking a calm, gentle, elderly dog off-leash, giving her the dignity she deserves and the responsibility she has earned in her twilight years. But "machine people" - who detest other species and locked into rules (unless it's them) - cannot understand such concepts.
It seems to me that "machine people" will dominate the world ever more, leeching the creativity and ideas of those who are less locked in, while punishing them for the eccentricities that so often come as part of the creative package.
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
Yes, the smoker decides to be a smoker. But obviously they do not do so on purely logical grounds, as a rational analysis does not support such a decision. Instead, like so much in life, they make the decision on substantially emotional grounds.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 21st, 2020, 11:39 amAre you suggesting that it's not actually someone's decision to take whatever risks they're taking (on public "knowledge" of the risks)?
The evidence shows that global corporations with vast marketing budgets have enormous power to manipulate our emotions. Manipulating my emotions to get me to buy a hat is one thing, manipulating my emotions to get me to buy a product which will certainly damage my health and maybe kill me is another.
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
In democracies at least, a willing government tends to arise from an agitated public demanding action. Such demands often arise from a sense of moral outrage, which is what I'm attempting to inspire here.
Might be risky? What would happen in an unregulated environment is that every scam artist on the planet would be selling a vaccine, few of which would actually work, some of which might cause harm, causing public confidence in vaccines to collapse, leading to MANY more deaths.but allowing anyone to sell the vaccine before testing and approval might be risky (although it might also have prevented many deaths).
As to the poor farmers who work in the tobacco industry, note that my proposal does not end tobacco production, but instead shifts ownership of that production to more responsible hands. Over the long term tobacco production would decline, but given the large number of people already addicted this has to be a patient slow and steady process.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
I was being generous to the anti-regulation folk. Some reasonabnle people think FDA procedures for approval of new drugs are overly onerous -- and that's debatable. However, I think most reasonable people want some sort of regulation.NukeBan wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2020, 8:48 am
Might be risky? What would happen in an unregulated environment is that every scam artist on the planet would be selling a vaccine, few of which would actually work, some of which might cause harm, causing public confidence in vaccines to collapse, leading to MANY more deaths.
It is true, of course, that many regulations exist partly to support the economic powers-that-be. It's illegal to "practice medicine without a license" -- which provides economic support for traditional M.D.s, and the schools that train them. Other professions that require credentials (teaching, lawyering, etc.) also support the educational system that provides the credential (as well as protecting the economic interests of the credentialled). Abe Lincoln never went to law school, although I think he passed the bar. The FDA new drug approval process is very expensive -- which means that only large drug companies can actually try to get new drugs approved. Unfortunately, there aren't many reasonable alternatives.
The notion that "all drugs should be legal" might be designed to allow recreational drug use, but the crux of the matter is the regulation of medical drugs. Surely that's more important than whether we can snort cocaine without a prescription. (By the way, I knew a plastic surgeon who claimed that he used cocaine for nose-jobs because it was both anasthetic and slowed bleeding. He claimed phamaceutical grade cocaine didn't have the side effects or negative consequences of street cocaine. I have no idea if he was right.)
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: All drugs should be legal
What would "deciding to do x on logical grounds" ever be? In other words, the very idea of that doesn't make any sense. "Logical grounds" can't tell you what you should or shouldn't do, because there are no facts to that effect. It's always a matter of "What do you want to do?" "What do you desire?" Etc.NukeBan wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2020, 8:35 amYes, the smoker decides to be a smoker. But obviously they do not do so on purely logical grounds, as a rational analysis does not support such a decision. Instead, like so much in life, they make the decision on substantially emotional grounds.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 21st, 2020, 11:39 amAre you suggesting that it's not actually someone's decision to take whatever risks they're taking (on public "knowledge" of the risks)?
Just what sort of evidence are we talking about there?The evidence shows that global corporations with vast marketing budgets have enormous power to manipulate our emotions.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: All drugs should be legal
Forthright about the ingredients. That's not so hard. Otherwise they'd be guilty of contractual fraud.
Re the health risks, that's not up to the manufacturers. But insofar as health risks are known they should be public knowledge.
Then it's your responsibility whether you'll take whatever risks (risks as they are known, as well as risking the unknown).
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
Actually, there's a long supply chain, and it's possible to be less than forthright about ingredients without being fraudulent yourself. I worked for a company that developed OTC drugs, dietary supplements, natural insect repellents, etc. That's why I know about these things. We contracted out the physical manufacture of our products (we were a small company). One of the ingredients in one of our formulas was bee propolis. Our manufacturer was buying it from a supposedly reputable source. However, we occasionally (it wasn't required by law) assayed our products, and, lo and behold, there was no bee propolis in this one. Of course fraud was involved, but not on our part or on that of our supplier. It was down the road a couple of steps. Fortunately, bee propolis was of minor importance to the efficacy of the product and our supplier changed suppliers.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2020, 3:47 pm
Forthright about the ingredients. That's not so hard. Otherwise they'd be guilty of contractual fraud.
Re the health risks, that's not up to the manufacturers. But insofar as health risks are known they should be public knowledge.
Then it's your responsibility whether you'll take whatever risks (risks as they are known, as well as risking the unknown).
If the product had been a drug (it was a personal care ointment) the quality control required of the supplier would have been stricter; assays would have been required. Requiring strict assays on personal care products, or food, or dietary supplements would dramatically increase the cost, and would drive small companies out of business (there would be economies of scale to such assays that would allow only companies producing large quantities of the product to comply).
Quality control requirements for drugs seem reasonable to me, as does requiring a paper trail in case of a recall. It is certainly true that if such controls were not required by law, many companies would cut costs and stop performing them. This could benefit consumers (lower prices), but in the long run, it would have a negative effect on human health.
You may think that people should be responsible for their own health care; I agree to some extent. But what about uneducated people, illiterate people, and the children of such people? Don't we have some responsiblity to protect them? Maybe we'd all be better off if they got sick and died (as would surely happen given your proposals), but I prefer to think that society has some responsibility.
By the way, it seems to me that the giant leap forward in human health and longevity has coincided with regulation of the medical profession and of drugs (in the U.S. drugs were largely unregulated until about 100 years ago). Of course this was also the period when vaccines were developed, anti-biotics discovered, etc. But that makes sense. Why bother regulating ineffective drugs? The Covid vaccine is controversial -- many Americans claim they will refuse to get vaccinated. But vaccines create herd immunity, and refusing vaccination harms not only yourself, but also thereatens the well-being of everyone else. Indeed, it is now probably safer to NOT be vaccinated for certain diseases (like polio). But that is only the case because of the fact that the vast majority of the population has been vaccinated, and thus the disease is rare. If everyone made that choice, the disease would soon make a comeback. Based on Kant, that's why refusing vaccination is an asshole move.
Also, many other factors that have dramatically improved human health and well being come from government programs. Safe drinking water has doubtless contributed to human health (thanks, Uncle Sam). Do you also think the government should get out of the water purification business and let people decide for themselves what water to drink? If poor people, who can't afford expensive drugs or clean water (if regulations were abolished you could still get the good stuff if your were willing to pay) get sick and die, that's their look out (according to Terrapin's theory). I disagree.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
If Dupont declare that C-8 is a drug and give it to people to do what they want with ,would tha be a good idea?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: All drugs should be legal
Sure. I wasn't saying anything about what step in a chain we're talking about. It wouldn't be hard for that supplier to be forthright about the ingredients, otherwise there's contractual fraud involved.Ecurb wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2020, 6:16 pm Actually, there's a long supply chain, and it's possible to be less than forthright about ingredients without being fraudulent yourself. I worked for a company that developed OTC drugs, dietary supplements, natural insect repellents, etc. That's why I know about these things. We contracted out the physical manufacture of our products (we were a small company). One of the ingredients in one of our formulas was bee propolis. Our manufacturer was buying it from a supposedly reputable source. However, we occasionally (it wasn't required by law) assayed our products, and, lo and behold, there was no bee propolis in this one. Of course fraud was involved, but not on our part or on that of our supplier. It was down the road a couple of steps.
I wouldn't have anything like a capitalist economy in the first place.Requiring strict assays on personal care products, or food, or dietary supplements would dramatically increase the cost, and would drive small companies out of business (there would be economies of scale to such assays that would allow only companies producing large quantities of the product to comply).
Everyone would have an education available to them. So it's their choice/responsibility to acquire an education.But what about uneducated people, illiterate people, and the children of such people? Don't we have some responsiblity to protect them?
People could decide what water to drink, but again, I wouldn't have a capitalist economy. I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist.Do you also think the government should get out of the water purification business and let people decide for themselves what water to drink?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
FDA defines a drug as, "Drugs are defined as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and as articles intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals." That's the basic definition (there are details, for example some such "articles" may be regulated as "medical devices" instead of as "drugs").
I'm not an expert on recreational drug laws, but I don't think FDA is involved, except in the case of misuse of prescription drugs. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and some others aren't (I think, although I'm not sure) under the aegis of FDA. Laws regulating their use and distribution are passed by the states.
"Intent" is based on labelling. For example, if Linus Pauling wanted to sell Vitamin C (a legal dietary supplement) with a label such as "VITAMIN C COLD TREATMENT" that would be a "misbranded drug". The result (of course) is that purveyors of dietary supplements try to hint at the health benefits without making explicit claims. If they did make a disease treatment claim, they would have to either rely on an existing FDA monograph or apply for approval as a "new drug" (which would never happen because of the expense, and because you can't patent dietary supplements).
If Dupont declared C-8 a drug or made any disease treatment claim, they would have to rely on an existing FDA monograph, or do the extensive safety and efficacy testing required for new drug approval.
I have no idea how this works in the UK, or Australia, or the E.U. I used to know, because we were trying to sell some of our products in the EU, but I've forgotten.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: All drugs should be legal
So do two year old children have a responsibility to educate themselves about drugs and water? Or is their welfare wholly dependent on their irresponsible and uneducated parents? Don't we have a responsibility to protect children, or mentally handicapped people?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2020, 7:52 pm
Everyone would have an education available to them. So it's their choice/responsibility to acquire an education.
People could decide what water to drink, but again, I wouldn't have a capitalist economy. I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist.
I understand your position, and at least it seems coherent and consistent, but I disagree. So does almost everyone else.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: All drugs should be legal
I don't know why you'd think I'm saying anything different on that end than what we have already.Ecurb wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2020, 7:58 pm So do two year old children have a responsibility to educate themselves about drugs and water? Or is their welfare wholly dependent on their irresponsible and uneducated parents? Don't we have a responsibility to protect children, or mentally handicapped people?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: All drugs should be legal
Not very helpful here.Ecurb wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2020, 7:53 pmFDA defines a drug as, "Drugs are defined as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and as articles intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals." That's the basic definition (there are details, for example some such "articles" may be regulated as "medical devices" instead of as "drugs").
That is missing the point of the thread though. The assertion that all drugs be legalised.
I'm not an expert on recreational drug laws, but I don't think FDA is involved, except in the case of misuse of prescription drugs. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and some others aren't (I think, although I'm not sure) under the aegis of FDA. Laws regulating their use and distribution are passed by the states.
"Intent" is based on labelling. For example, if Linus Pauling wanted to sell Vitamin C (a legal dietary supplement) with a label such as "VITAMIN C COLD TREATMENT" that would be a "misbranded drug". The result (of course) is that purveyors of dietary supplements try to hint at the health benefits without making explicit claims. If they did make a disease treatment claim, they would have to either rely on an existing FDA monograph or apply for approval as a "new drug" (which would never happen because of the expense, and because you can't patent dietary supplements).
If Dupont declared C-8 a drug or made any disease treatment claim, they would have to rely on an existing FDA monograph, or do the extensive safety and efficacy testing required for new drug approval.
All modern countries have government funded drug approval agencies - possibly better in many instances than the US who seem to approve on economic grounds for the benefits of business.
I have no idea how this works in the UK, or Australia, or the E.U. I used to know, because we were trying to sell some of our products in the EU, but I've forgotten.
C-8 is toxic. I could be claimed to "affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals." without a doubt. In fact many drugs are highly toxic. That is to say many approved, legal drugs, that are specifically designed to do harm such as many chemotherapies.
The reason I asked was to challenge the thread topic.
- Mounce574
- Premium Member
- Posts: 156
- Joined: October 8th, 2021, 2:24 am
- Location: Oklahoma
Re: All drugs should be legal
As an addict in recovery, drugs can destroy lives in many ways- they alter your dopamine, serotonin, and other areas of the brain. IV drug users are at risk of cardiac arrest, destruction of the veins they use, and if they share needles, they can get a host of other problems.
I used to make shake and if I had thought about what the ingredients were instead of the end product, it is a wonder I didn't die from poison.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NF from Motto
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023