![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 30. Go back in thread:
Posted by Diane on January 2, 2000, at 21:06:07
In reply to US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Diane on January 1, 2000, at 10:33:12
> Personally, I'm for legalization of everything. I'm tired of people telling me what I can
> and CAN'T have.
> I wouldn't dream of telling any one what to do or not do with their life...it's theirs not mine!, not to mention it's their ONLY one...and my only one.
>I was talking about legalization of drugs. Sorry I didn't make that clear...my fault.
BUT I agree with Cass totally. As long as you are NOT hurting anyone else it's ok by me. You live your life as you see fit. You only have but one life....you should be able to live it your way.
Posted by dove on January 3, 2000, at 9:34:45
In reply to one life, posted by Diane on January 2, 2000, at 21:06:07
Society has intrinsic values and morals, every society and every culture. Those characteristics reflect the denizens of said society. If we are to establish a society which protects it's offspring, it's elders, it's families, it's people; then we must have bylaws that state what is acceptable and what is not.
To set free all drugs, all vices, in the name of victimless crime or victimless rights, would be an absolute fallacy in actuation. Every decision or action we take or make, has an effect on the world surrounding us, whether or not it is immediately identifiable. Our children will and currently are, paying the price for the lessening of obscenity laws. They will and are paying the price of out-of-marriage sex, empty homes and empty lives sucking their very essence into the dark void of parentlessness. They are left unloved, uncared for, unwanted and uncherished, because we have the right to do whatever we desire. Legalizing the sale of controlled substances is not acceptable in *my* society, not because I want to live in some puritanical ignorant bliss, but because I readily know that *my* society will seek immediate gratification along with the quick-(apparently painless)-fix.
I have no desire to deny someone their yearnings, but I prefer that in *my* society there exist rules and laws with which to judge something as helpful and/or harmful. I do not believe that victimless vice exists, in fact, I would argue that it does not and as such, there is no way to legalize such things without harming society as a whole. So it may be your one life to live, but it will effect another's, whether one acknowledges it or not. In addition, decisions and choices as expressed by the politicians elected and laws conceded, will reflect the fiber used to weave the fabric of society, with the imperfections disburdened on the vulnerable, the poor and powerless.
I do not intend this rambling to attack anyone, I am only stating my *feelings* on the subject, and everyone is entitled to their own feelings, and I acknowledge and respect you're right to disagree with me and even state that I am in error, but I will not be changing my mind anytime soon :-)
Happy day to one and all :-)
dove
Posted by Elizabeth on January 3, 2000, at 9:54:29
In reply to Re: one life, posted by dove on January 3, 2000, at 9:34:45
Dove --
Interesting post...thanks for making me think. :)
There are, are there not, things we do that are *immoral* but not *illegal*? That affect those around us but are still, ultimately, our right?
For example, we don't mandate who can and can't have children, even though some people are unable to care for children. Why? Because if it is possible to own any piece of property, then certainly one's own body is one's property.
There has to be a balance between security and freedom. In most Western societies, when there is a tie, freedom wins. That's a cultural value.
> Legalizing the sale of controlled substances is not acceptable in *my* society, not because I want to live in some puritanical ignorant bliss, but because I readily know that *my* society will seek immediate gratification along with the quick-(apparently painless)-fix.
Controlled substances are, for the most part, legal. That's why they're called "controlled." The problem with the drug black market at present is that it is completely unregulated.
> I do not believe that victimless vice exists, in fact, I would argue that it does not and as such, there is no way to legalize such things without harming society as a whole.
You still end up having to make a judgment call as to what constitutes "vice," though.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 3, 2000, at 10:07:34
In reply to I think it's safe here..., posted by Cass on January 2, 2000, at 20:49:52
> > > I agree with Diane. We live in a free society, and big brother should not tell us what is right or wrong for us. Besides, if drugs are legalized, they could be taxable and boost the economy. Also, people will always find ways to get drugs illegally if they are desperate enough. People either want to self-medicate or rebel with illegal drugs. Legalization gives profesionals the green-light to counsel patients about the pros and cons. Legalization also takes away the allure of rebellion. I'm open to other opinions.
> > Do you equate a free society with anarchy? In other words, should we all be allowed to do whatever we want to whomever we want whenever we want?> I absolutely don't believe in anarchy, but people are not necessarily harming others by self-medicating. I feel sorry for people who are outside of the mainstream and who are often in abusive or vulnerable circumstances. If I lived on the streets, I can tell you, I would seek out illegal drugs. Many of us have the luxury of having the counsel and medication under controlled circimstance. We are fortunate. Sometimes drugs are life savers. And if drugs are regulated, then certainly the harm factor of street drugs is decreased. I may be a semi-anarchist, in that I believe that certain acts are okay if there is no victim, for instance, in the case of prostitution. I don't like the influence of Puritanism on law. People argue that sometimes the prostitute is harmed or a wife is cheated on, but that often happens to woman in marriage. (Oooh, I am stirring a fire, aren't I? But I'm doing so with an attitude of open-mindedness not antagonism.) I feel this is a somewhat safe place to discuss the subject of politics and religion, especially in regards to drugs. I'm in the mood to debate, but my opinions are not fixed. I hope I didn't offend you.
Your hope has been fulfilled.
> I absolutely don't believe in anarchy, but people are not necessarily harming others by self-medicating.
Do you exclude those who self-medicate using drugs that induce violent behaviors in five percent of those who take them? Should such drugs remain available so that the majority for whom they produce pleasant effects can have them.
> If I lived on the streets, I can tell you, I would seek out illegal drugs
Why?
> Many of us have the luxury of having the counsel and medication under controlled circumstances.
Why spend the extra money? Just figure it out as you go along. Of course, those without the aforementioned luxury would have little choice but to do so.
> Sometimes drugs are life savers.
I agree.
> I may be a semi-anarchist, in that I believe that certain acts are okay if there is no victim…
How would YOU go about defining the word “victim”? Perhaps I would not agree with all of your choices. Perhaps a majority of individuals would not agree with all of your choices. That is why we have laws.
> …for instance, in the case of prostitution. I don't like the influence of Puritanism on law.
Vote.
> People argue that sometimes the prostitute is harmed or a wife is cheated on, but that often happens to woman in marriage. (Oooh, I am stirring a fire, aren't I?…
Perhaps for some people.
> I feel this is a somewhat safe place to discuss the subject of politics and religion, especially in regards to drugs.
I have seen people here for whom religion and politics are more than just subjects to indulge in rhetoric.
However, I agree that a focus on issues regarding drugs is important here.> I'm in the mood to debate…
I guess I was too. That can change.
> but my opinions are not fixed.
Neither are mine. Sometimes my ego resists, though. It can be a real pain in the ass sometimes.
- Scott
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 3, 2000, at 10:09:46
In reply to one life, posted by Diane on January 2, 2000, at 21:06:07
> I was talking about legalization of drugs. Sorry I didn't make that clear...my fault.
> BUT I agree with Cass totally. As long as you are NOT hurting anyone else it's ok by me. You live your life as you see fit. You only have but one life....you should be able to live it your way.
To continue to play devil’s advocate…First of all, when I said “to whomever”, it was my intention to include the self. If you are a devout Christian, suicide is a sin. As far as I know, suicide is not against the law in the U.S. (I’m not sure, since many states still have sodomy laws on the books). Also, I think such a law would be difficult to enforce using today’s technology and the existing infrastructure. Should drugs that have been developed for the expressed purpose of committing suicide be made readily available? Do we want those whose judgement is temporarily impaired during an episode of mental illness to easily take their own lives? Would it not be their right to do so? Would it hurt anyone else? Would the grief suffered by loved ones be deemed legally different for death by suicide than that by natural causes?
If ALL molecular compounds were to be made legally available to everyone, would that be in the best interest of all individuals? How about applying a minimum age requirement? Uh oh, law #1.
- Scott
Posted by Cass on January 3, 2000, at 12:13:31
In reply to Re: I think it's safe here..., posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 3, 2000, at 10:07:34
> > If I lived on the streets, I can tell you, I would seek out illegal drugs
>
> Why?
>
Why? The extreme physical hardships, for example, of surviving the the cold or heat or rain or snow, or surviving illness or physical abuse without physical or emotional comfort. The discomfort of being dirty. The fear of violence. The horrible stares and the stigma of being unwanted in the community.
Most, if not all of us, here are not in nearly such desperate circumstances, yet many of us take sedatives for stress. Can you really judge those who live on the streets, who are in such truly miserable circumstances, for seeking out some comfort of their own? If I lived on the streets, I would take drugs and lots of them. It would be a survival mechanism which would perhaps prevent me from committing suicide.
> > …for instance, in the case of prostitution. I don't like the influence of Puritanism on law.
>
> Vote.
>
I do :)
Gotta run. More later...
Posted by Adam on January 3, 2000, at 17:28:28
In reply to US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Diane on January 1, 2000, at 10:33:12
I think most if not all "drugs" should be legal, but I would hate to see unfettered drug distribution. The reality of supply and demand essentially compels us to take a different approach to the drug "problem" than what we have used in the past. If people want it bad enough, they'll get it, and there will always be someone willing to break the law to make a profit off of this demand. Since such commerce is unstoppable, why bother trying to stop it? Why not attempt to regulate it? You could then tax drug commerce and use the revenues to fund drug education and rehabilitation for those users who become addicts, etc. You know, sort of like alcohol (though I'm not sure if any alcohol tax money goes toward treating alcoholics), which is about as destructive as any other substance out there. It's utter hypocracy anyway that EtOH is legal in the US but, say, cannabis isn't.
Trying to stem the flow of controlled and illicit substances just creates a contraband economy, while making it only marginally more difficult to obtain said substances. Make it legal and regulate it. Provide more (and honest) education about drugs. Make provisions for the import of drugs that are not FDA approved (I guess there already are, so perhaps I should say just don't mess with them). Give doctors more control if they are willing to accept the liability, and put the ultimate control in the hands of the consumer, whilst making sure that the consumer is informed. Enough useless moralism about chemicals.
> US Wants Web Drug Regulation
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,33301,00.html?tw=wn19991228
>
> Bitter Pill for Online Drugstores
> http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,33315,00.html
>
> Personally, I'm for legalization of everything. I'm tired of people telling me what I can
> and CAN'T have.
> I wouldn't dream of telling any one what to do or not do with their life...it's theirs not mine!, not to mention it's their ONLY one...and my only one.
>
Posted by Cass on January 4, 2000, at 1:01:49
In reply to Re: I think it's safe here..., posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 3, 2000, at 10:07:34
> Do you exclude those who self-medicate using drugs that induce violent behaviors in five percent of those who take them? Should such drugs remain available so that the majority for whom they produce pleasant effects can have them.
Isn't that also true of anti-depressants and other psychotropic drugs? Prozac got quite a bit of bad press at one time for the violent behavior that it induced. Halcion did too. Again, regulation could decrease that danger for those who take street drugs.
>> How would YOU go about defining the word “victim”? Perhaps I would not agree with all of your choices. Perhaps a majority of individuals would not agree with all of your choices. That is why we have laws.
>
Victims are usually the recipients of malice or negligence. In the case of prostitution, if someone is simply offended by the occupation, they are not a victim. I am often offended by the narrow-mindedness and intolerance of people who consider themselves "religious," but I do not consider myself a victim of them. I can live my life separate from them. I feel that their intolerance has a negative effect on society as do many others believe that prostitution has a negative effect on society. We cannot make laws against everything which is offensive or even potentially destructive. Nothing would be legal.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 4, 2000, at 11:08:10
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Adam on January 3, 2000, at 17:28:28
> > Personally, I'm for legalization of everything. I'm tired of people telling me what I can and CAN'T have.
I like to ask questions.
> The reality of supply and demand essentially compels us to take a different approach to the drug "problem" than what we have used in the past.Can you describe briefly this reality? What does “essentially” mean? I’m glad that the use of this word still allows room for having motivations and targets other than supply-and-demand to be deemed compelling. I agree with the surmise that we probably need to change our strategy to deal with the use and availability of the types of drugs being discussed here. However, I don’t agree that it is simply the “reality” of supply-and-demand that should be taken into consideration when developing different approaches to address what I feel is a *true* problem. Something as simple as putting up more streetlights in problem urban areas could help. (I really don’t want to debate the efficacy of different strategies).
> I think most if not all "drugs" should be legal, but I would hate to see unfettered drug distribution.
Of course, no black-market would develop for those drugs that are to be fettered. :)> If people want it bad enough, they'll get it, and there will always be someone willing to break the law to make a profit off of this demand. Since such commerce is unstoppable, why bother trying to stop it?
Could you please direct me to some of the sources you found that detail the reasons why this type of commerce is unstoppable?
Thanks.
> Enough useless moralism about chemicals.
Useless?
I try not to be “bipolar” in my way of thinking. My brain is bipolar enough as it is. To legalize everything represents an all-or-nothing approach that seems to be situated at one end of a spectrum, just as controlling everything would be at the other. “Reality” seems to be anything but bipolar or black-and-white - at least to me. Sometimes a simplistic approach such as all-or-nothing cannot serve well to deal with a complicated problem. Both society and the individuals who comprise it exist as layers of interacting levels of organization. I think the intricacies of these relationships often require approaches of commensurate complexity.
- Scott
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 4, 2000, at 11:33:35
In reply to More, posted by Cass on January 4, 2000, at 1:01:49
> > Do you exclude those who self-medicate using drugs that induce violent behaviors in five percent of those who take them? Should such drugs remain available so that the majority for whom they produce pleasant effects can have them.
> Isn't that also true of anti-depressants and other psychotropic drugs? Prozac got quite a bit of bad press at one time for the violent behavior that it induced. Halcion did too.I guess that’s what doctors and prescriptions are good for.
> Again, regulation could decrease that danger for those who take street drugs.
I hope so. It’s hard to know who to trust as far getting information is concerned.
> > How would YOU go about defining the word “victim”? Perhaps I would not agree with all of your choices. Perhaps a majority of individuals would not agree with all of your choices. That is why we have laws.> Victims are usually the recipients of malice or negligence.
I like this definition. I think I would add greed in their somewhere.
> In the case of prostitution, if someone is simply offended by the occupation, they are not a victim.
That sounds good.
However, sometimes I think the prostitutes themselves are the victims. Perhaps some have been neglected by society – live on the streets or work them. Also, I cringe when I think about those pubescent girls who are sold by, or stolen from, their families in the Thai country side to be enslaved in houses of prostitution in Bangkok.
> I am often offended by the narrow-mindedness and intolerance of people who consider themselves "religious,"…
Me too.
> but I do not consider myself a victim of them. I can live my life separate from them.
Fortunately, this statement can be made by most of us living in the U.S. over the past thirty years or so. (Crusades, holocaust, Ku Klux Klan, Muslim holy wars, etc.)
> I feel that their intolerance has a negative effect on society as do many others believe that prostitution has a negative effect on society. We cannot make laws against everything which is offensive or even potentially destructive. Nothing would be legal.
Man. Religion and Politics…
- Scott
Posted by Adam on January 4, 2000, at 21:08:12
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 4, 2000, at 11:08:10
>
> > The reality of supply and demand essentially compels us to take a different approach to the drug "problem" than what we have used in the past.
>
> Can you describe briefly this reality? What does “essentially” mean?My statement above is based on lectures I had in a microeconomics course I took in college. I must admit, I don't have the notes with me (probably in my parents attick, and thus I won't be able to get my hands on them for a while), so I can't give specific examples just yet. What I remember quite clearly is that if you assumed certain market forces (reasonable assumptions given the "utility" of drugs to addicts and affictionados and the inelasticity of the market), the demand is simply enormously strong, and drives supply curves in a rather inexorable direction. My professor (a very straightlaced guy, which made his assertions a bit suprising at first) felt that short of building an impenetrable wall around the US, you could never prevent drugs from getting in from the outside. And what does one do about the drugs coming from inside? The only solution that he (and it would seem many other economists, though I never saw the studies he referenced) could see was to legalize all drugs and tax them as much as the market could stand without recreating the contraband problem.
It made perfect sense to me then, and still does. Besides, how hard is it really to get controlled substances? I could get drugs in high school easier than I could get beer. In college it was effortless. From where I sit, the war on drugs as it is being fought is a spectacular failure, and I speculate it exists more to provide its supporters with political cachet than to serve any practical purpose. It is an expensive and misdirected waste, IMO.
>
>
> Could you please direct me to some of the sources you found that detail the reasons why this type of commerce is unstoppable?See above. I'll look, if you like, though I imagine the specific info. you want is "out there" on the 'net. I found this link in about two minutes...
http://darkchylde.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/hempwitchhunt.html
A bit of a screed, but references "the experts".
> Thanks.
>
> > Enough useless moralism about chemicals.
>
> Useless?
>Yes. Blind "morals" and cynical politics are the only plausible explanation for the drug policy of the United States as it exists. No one would argue illicit drugs are harmless any more than one would argue EtOH is harmless. Yet the latter is a legal controlled substance, partly because enough "moral" people think alcohol is somehow preferable, and because our attempts at prohibition did more harm than good. This is the historical reality of booze in the U.S. Why should reefer be any different? And how do we draw the line between supposed "gateway" drugs like cannibis and, say, crack cocaine?
I'm on a little bit of methamphetamine, after all. Perhaps because it is just the byproduct of "good drug" (selegiline) usage I escape social deviancy in the eyes of some. Then again, maybe not. I'll still have to explain myself the next time I need to pee in a cup for somebody, and as far as I'm concerned what I'm taking is nobody's good buisiness but mine. I'm thinking of trying some nootropics to combat memory problems in a few months that I'll have to order from overseas. Why should anybody interfere with this?
Legalize, regulate, and educate. It's the only practical way to deal with psychoactive substances. It's asinine to criminalize addiction based solely on chemical structure, and doubly asinine to swell jails with responsible individuals for putting certain things into their own bodies.
Posted by juniper on January 5, 2000, at 0:04:49
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Adam on January 4, 2000, at 21:08:12
i took a course on drugs, behavior and society 2 years ago. the professor was straight forward and the class was quite informative because we discussed drugs without attatching a moral value to them. this is not easily done in society as the word drug often has strong connotations attatched to it. regardless of the facts, a politician who ran on the premise of support for some or all of illegal drugs to be legalized would not be well accepted by the public at large. the legality of drugs in our society has little to do with fact, and much to do with politics. according to the national institute on drug abuse, nicotine is more addictive than heroin. tabacco related deaths total more than 400,000 each year in the US alone. alcohol is associated with over 100,000 deaths a year. in 1990 (the last year for which i have the facts in front of my nose) alcohol related traffic accidents killed over 22,000 people, more than homicides.
you don't get these kind-of statistics with other drugs.
studies consistently show that the underground fashion the drug trade assumes kills many more than the drugs themselves. and the deaths caused by a physical reaction to a drug are often because the drug was not pure. unregulated, dealers can, and do, add substances to drugs to stretch the amount and therefore their revenues. taking, or combining, substances when you do not know what is in them can be deadly. i'd argue that many of the deaths attributed to drugs also often occur because of the lack of awareness prevelant in our just-say-no society. in countries where alcohol is a social drink with no age limit, alcoholism is lower. children learn at an early age what constitutes moderate, and safe, drinking. we tell kids no, no, no and when they are 21 hand them a keg. and we tell them nothing of the effects of illegal drugs except that they are bad...but children can see through this. they know that you are not telling the entire story and so they find the other side for themselves.
Quixotically, everyone would be fully informed on the pros and cons of drugs, and if one chose to take them, it would be in a controlled environment with a pure substance.
realistically, i work with juvenile delinquents. obtaining drugs is as easy as buying a candy bar. and in light of the situations that many of these kids are from, drugs suddenly don't seem too bad. i have found that the only way kids will listen to an adult speak about drugs is if this adult is not judgemental and just lets them know the facts, which can be more terrifying than morality, for both illegal and legal drugs.whew....
just some more tinder for the discussion.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 5, 2000, at 8:34:18
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Adam on January 4, 2000, at 21:08:12
> > > The reality of supply and demand essentially compels us to take a different approach to the drug "problem" than what we have used in the past.
> >
> > Can you describe briefly this reality? What does “essentially” mean?
>
> My statement above is based on lectures I had in a microeconomics course I took in college. I must admit, I don't have the notes with me (probably in my parents attick, and thus I won't be able to get my hands on them for a while), so I can't give specific examples just yet. What I remember quite clearly is that if you assumed certain market forces (reasonable assumptions given the "utility" of drugs to addicts and affictionados and the inelasticity of the market), the demand is simply enormously strong, and drives supply curves in a rather inexorable direction. My professor (a very straightlaced guy, which made his assertions a bit suprising at first) felt that short of building an impenetrable wall around the US, you could never prevent drugs from getting in from the outside. And what does one do about the drugs coming from inside? The only solution that he (and it would seem many other economists, though I never saw the studies he referenced) could see was to legalize all drugs and tax them as much as the market could stand without recreating the contraband problem.
>
> It made perfect sense to me then, and still does. Besides, how hard is it really to get controlled substances? I could get drugs in high school easier than I could get beer. In college it was effortless. From where I sit, the war on drugs as it is being fought is a spectacular failure, and I speculate it exists more to provide its supporters with political cachet than to serve any practical purpose. It is an expensive and misdirected waste, IMO.
> >
> >
> > Could you please direct me to some of the sources you found that detail the reasons why this type of commerce is unstoppable?
>
> See above. I'll look, if you like, though I imagine the specific info. you want is "out there" on the 'net. I found this link in about two minutes...
>
> http://darkchylde.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/hempwitchhunt.html
>
> A bit of a screed, but references "the experts".
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > > Enough useless moralism about chemicals.
> >
> > Useless?
> >
>
> Yes. Blind "morals" and cynical politics are the only plausible explanation for the drug policy of the United States as it exists. No one would argue illicit drugs are harmless any more than one would argue EtOH is harmless. Yet the latter is a legal controlled substance, partly because enough "moral" people think alcohol is somehow preferable, and because our attempts at prohibition did more harm than good. This is the historical reality of booze in the U.S. Why should reefer be any different? And how do we draw the line between supposed "gateway" drugs like cannibis and, say, crack cocaine?
>
> I'm on a little bit of methamphetamine, after all. Perhaps because it is just the byproduct of "good drug" (selegiline) usage I escape social deviancy in the eyes of some. Then again, maybe not. I'll still have to explain myself the next time I need to pee in a cup for somebody, and as far as I'm concerned what I'm taking is nobody's good buisiness but mine. I'm thinking of trying some nootropics to combat memory problems in a few months that I'll have to order from overseas. Why should anybody interfere with this?
>
> Legalize, regulate, and educate. It's the only practical way to deal with psychoactive substances. It's asinine to criminalize addiction based solely on chemical structure, and doubly asinine to swell jails with responsible individuals for putting certain things into their own bodies.Please don’t take this too personally, but I can’t believe what I’m reading.
To me, these rationalizations are nothing more than a defeatist’s attempt to disown a problem. It is my opinion that this represents the posture of a coward. “Don’t bother to fight against something for which there is no guarantee of success.”
Let’s just abolish all regulations regarding the distribution and registration of handguns. After all, people who want them bad enough can already get them very easily on the street. Supply and demand, right?
I am certainly no student of microeconomics. However, I would like to see your professor take a leisurely stroll through the South Bronx to see the results of the availability of crack and heroin. Let him see the young adults sprawled out and nodding in an ally. Let him see the gutted abandoned buildings, the filth, and the people who live in it. Why is the squalor of these neighbors perpetuated? Where does all their money go? What sorts of jobs are available to young adults who are no more educated than a fourth-grader? Who in their right mind would open up a business in such a neighborhood where his store would be robbed at gunpoint once a week to support the drug habits of these grade-school dropouts. Would access to a cheaper supply of these same drugs prevent all of this?
> …legalize all drugs and tax them as much as the market could stand…
I find this the most offensive of all the considerations offered as an argument to legalize all drugs.
It disgusts me.> Legalize, regulate, and educate. It's the only practical way to deal with psychoactive substances
1. Legalize
I agree that there are drugs that would probably be advantageous to legalize, especially the ones that I want.
2. regulate
You have already argued that the regulations that currently exist can’t be enforced.
What kind of enforceable regulations did you have in mind?3. educate
Wishful thinking.
I want to have access to all of the drugs in the world that might foster a full remission of my illness.
I think there are lots of changes regarding drug development and regulation that I would like to see.
Perhaps working within the established systems of government would produce the changes that a consensus deems advantageous.I would rather see a constructive discourse regarding the details of existing regulations and how they might be improved upon.
I’ll leave the morality thing alone.
It is my hope that all of this will not seem asinine.Sincerely,
Scott
Posted by Adam on January 5, 2000, at 10:45:56
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 5, 2000, at 8:34:18
>
> Please don’t take this too personally, but I can’t believe what I’m reading.
>
> To me, these rationalizations are nothing more than a defeatist’s attempt to disown a problem. It is my opinion that this represents the posture of a coward. “Don’t bother to fight against something for which there is no guarantee of success.”
>
> Let’s just abolish all regulations regarding the distribution and registration of handguns. After all, people who want them bad enough can already get them very easily on the street. Supply and demand, right?
>
One major difference between handguns and drugs: The former at best is used to hurt other people, the latter at worst is used to hurt oneself. Handguns are legally purchasable at Wal-Mart in the U.S. (my God-given right, goshdarnit) but, for instance, LSD isn't. This makes NO sense to me.> I am certainly no student of microeconomics. However, I would like to see your professor take a leisurely stroll through the South Bronx to see the results of the availability of crack and heroin. Let him see the young adults sprawled out and nodding in an ally. Let him see the gutted abandoned buildings, the filth, and the people who live in it. Why is the squalor of these neighbors perpetuated? Where does all their money go? What sorts of jobs are available to young adults who are no more educated than a fourth-grader? Who in their right mind would open up a business in such a neighborhood where his store would be robbed at gunpoint once a week to support the drug habits of these grade-school dropouts. Would access to a cheaper supply of these same drugs prevent all of this?
The main issue presented by economists, if I remember correctly, is that the terrible conditions you describe above would exist regardless of how easy drugs are to get, and how much they cost. This is what is meant by "inelasticity". Legalization only seems defeatest if one ignores the intractability of the problem of drug abuse, which may have as much to do with socioeconimics as they do with the properties of the chemical. It would seem more poor minorities in the Bronx are succumbing to drugs than rich white folks in Westchester County. Does something different happen when one or the other smokes crack? Or does the problem transcend physiology? I'll bet everything it does. Rather than blame drugs for social ills (a convenient scapegoat for do-nothing politicians in search of a hot-button issue) and punishing the people who use them , how about spending more time on ending the social injustices that put the poor and disenfranchised at such a high risk for self-destructive behavior?
>
> > …legalize all drugs and tax them as much as the market could stand…
>
> I find this the most offensive of all the considerations offered as an argument to legalize all drugs.
> It disgusts me.
>
But the same is done for alcohol and cigarettes, which are highly addictive and kill millions of people every year. It is disgusting on the surface, but the reality is some people will use them no matter what. If what the economists say is true (and nothing I can think of historically contradicts this assumption), so long as such profoundly inelastic demand exists for such things, the supply will follow. One is defeatest when they quit without a fight. One is pragmatic when they choose their battles carefully. Waging a war against supply is futile. However, influencing demand might work. For instance, cigarette usage has declined in this country primarily because years of education on the dangers of smoking have made an impact.> > Legalize, regulate, and educate. It's the only practical way to deal with psychoactive substances
>
> 1. Legalize
>
> I agree that there are drugs that would probably be advantageous to legalize, especially the ones that I want.
>
> 2. regulate
>
> You have already argued that the regulations that currently exist can’t be enforced.
> What kind of enforceable regulations did you have in mind?
>
Perhaps laws similar to those used for the currently acceptible drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Not a big stretch, really. Take the ATF and change its name.> 3. educate
>
> Wishful thinking.
>
This attitude could also be construed as defeatist. It's true that human behavior gives us little hope for curing our vices, but not no hope. I beleive the vast majority of human beings would use drugs only recreationally or not at all if they had self-esteem and knowledge. Sadly, too many people in the world are denied a fair shot at either. There is the crux of the problem, I think.
>
> I would rather see a constructive discourse regarding the details of existing regulations and how they might be improved upon.
>
Taking a different approach might still be constructive, no matter how controversial it first appears.> I’ll leave the morality thing alone.
>
>
> It is my hope that all of this will not seem asinine.
>
> Sincerely,
> ScottIt's not at all asinine. I don't think the morality thing can be ignored, though, because the drug problem is cast by so many in the light of morals. I find the prevalent anti-drug "morality" very frightening because it differs from extremest views like those held by Scientologists only by a matter of degree rather than logic. Chuck irrational fears of drugs (or at least the pose), and what you are left with is not a substance to blame but a society. Far more daunting and complex, politically unattractive, defying all pat explanations and easy solutions. Somehow Julliani types would rather throw a mentally ill homeless addict in jail than treat him or her like a human being in need of help. This is the current "morality", and the majority of the electorate seems to prefer it to thought or compassion.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on January 5, 2000, at 19:24:30
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Adam on January 5, 2000, at 10:45:56
This is where I get off.
- Scott
Posted by Elizabeth on January 5, 2000, at 19:41:25
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Adam on January 5, 2000, at 10:45:56
> One major difference between handguns and drugs: The former at best is used to hurt other people, the latter at worst is used to hurt oneself. Handguns are legally purchasable at Wal-Mart in the U.S. (my God-given right, goshdarnit) but, for instance, LSD isn't. This makes NO sense to me.
Random psychoanalytic tidbit: I had a dream once where a Walmart-esqe store (I think it was actually a KMart) was selling LSD.
> Legalization only seems defeatest if one ignores the intractability of the problem of drug abuse, which may have as much to do with socioeconimics as they do with the properties of the chemical.
I would say more. One person may get addicted to morphine and destroy his life, while another uses it reliably for control of chronic pain and improves his life, for example.
> It would seem more poor minorities in the Bronx are succumbing to drugs than rich white folks in Westchester County.
I dunno, I wonder if that isn't just a stereotype. I think that wealthy people with screwed-up family lives and/or particular natural predispositions are at risk for developing drug problems, e.g.
> Rather than blame drugs for social ills (a convenient scapegoat for do-nothing politicians in search of a hot-button issue)
Well said! :-)
> and punishing the people who use them , how about spending more time on ending the social injustices that put the poor and disenfranchised at such a high risk for self-destructive behavior?
Or that prevent the mentally ill, regardless of socioeconomic status, from seeking care.
> One is defeatest when they quit without a fight. One is pragmatic when they choose their battles carefully.
You're very quotable today!
> For instance, cigarette usage has declined in this country primarily because years of education on the dangers of smoking have made an impact.
Also, I think, because it's believable education. (Has everyone here seen "Reefer Madness?")
> Perhaps laws similar to those used for the currently acceptible drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Not a big stretch, really. Take the ATF and change its name.
The Drugs 'n' Guns Agency? :-)
> It's not at all asinine. I don't think the morality thing can be ignored, though, because the drug problem is cast by so many in the light of morals.
Well, people want to find something outside themselves to blame for social and other ills. Drugs, pornography, Canada :-), whatever.
Posted by Cass on January 5, 2000, at 20:28:11
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Elizabeth on January 5, 2000, at 19:41:25
Adam, I also want to compliment you on your well-thought out points and your ability to articulate them. You have helped me to crystallize some of my ideas and convictions. I am surprised at how many people agree with the idea of drug legalization. It's such an emotional trigger for some people. It's a credit to the members of this site that this thread did not get nasty. This site is an ideal use of the internet.
Posted by Adam on January 6, 2000, at 14:16:38
In reply to Re: US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Elizabeth on January 5, 2000, at 19:41:25
>
> > It would seem more poor minorities in the Bronx are succumbing to drugs than rich white folks in Westchester County.
>
> I dunno, I wonder if that isn't just a stereotype. I think that wealthy people with screwed-up family lives and/or particular natural predispositions are at risk for developing drug problems, e.g.
>Yes, you are right, and this is an important point. It's difficult not to be influenced by images of inner-city turmoil and myths of suburban tranquility, media-driven distortions if ever there were. I guess this is particularly ironic given that my own brother abused cannibis terribly (it can happen, strange as it sounds), and my community was relatively affluent and about as lilly-white as it gets. Interesting lapse, Adam.
Posted by Zeke on January 10, 2000, at 2:54:02
In reply to US Wants Web Drug Regulation, posted by Diane on January 1, 2000, at 10:33:12
> Personally, I'm for legalization of everything. I'm tired of people telling me what I can
> and CAN'T have.
> I wouldn't dream of telling any one what to do or not do with their life...it's theirs not mine!, not to mention it's their ONLY one...and my only one.
>Try this one from today's New York Times:
Online Sales Spur Illegal Importing of Medicine
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/01/biztech/articles/10drug.htmlI basically agree with you. My only relative concern is that people who are desperate may unwisely take some potion that will harm them. We are adults and should be responsible. I'd feel better if people were more adept in scientific (critical) thinking and could make better informed decisions. But I don't mean to disagree with your approach. Just look at the cost of (approved) medications in the US vs. other countries and you'll have a good reason. Besides, many of the people pushing to stop this new 'vice' are the same ones pushing to deregulate guns. Personally I fear guns more than drugs.
Posted by jamie on January 10, 2000, at 15:37:26
In reply to Here's another Diane: Internet Drug Sales article, posted by Zeke on January 10, 2000, at 2:54:02
> I basically agree with you. My only relative concern is that people who are desperate may unwisely take some potion that will harm them. We are adults and should be responsible. I'd feel better if people were more adept in scientific (critical) thinking and could make better informed decisions. But I don't mean to disagree with your approach. Just look at the cost of (approved) medications in the US vs. other countries and you'll have a good reason. Besides, many of the people pushing to stop this new 'vice' are the same ones pushing to deregulate guns. Personally I fear guns more than drugs.
I don't fear drugs or guns. I fear the people who abuse them. Drugs and guns are mere inanimate objects by themselves. They are lifesavers in the hands of the wise. They are killers only in the the hands of a fool.
Posted by Elizabeth on January 10, 2000, at 17:42:37
In reply to Re: Here's another Diane: Internet Drug Sales article, posted by jamie on January 10, 2000, at 15:37:26
> I don't fear drugs or guns. I fear the people who abuse them. Drugs and guns are mere inanimate objects by themselves. They are lifesavers in the hands of the wise. They are killers only in the the hands of a fool.
Do you think that everyone is either "wise" or "a fool?"
Posted by Zeke on January 10, 2000, at 21:02:21
In reply to Re: Here's another Diane: Internet Drug Sales article, posted by jamie on January 10, 2000, at 15:37:26
> I don't fear drugs or guns. I fear the people who abuse them. Drugs and guns are mere inanimate objects by themselves. They are lifesavers in the hands of the wise. They are killers only in the the hands of a fool.
That's a good point -- though I thought "in the hands of human beings" was clearly implied in my statement.
I think that you will agree that guns only play a minor role in putting food on our tables. Guns are mainly used offensively and defensively against other human beings. So in the human context, they are tools of agression or to ward off others who are agressive -- such as others with their guns.
By comparison, drugs can and do provide many benefits -- relief of disease, illness and pain -- problems generally not caused by other humans and certainly problems that predate guns.
Both may be beneficial or harmful, I worry much moreso about misuse of guns however.
Posted by Zeke on January 10, 2000, at 21:15:10
In reply to Re: Here's another Diane: Internet Drug Sales article, posted by Elizabeth on January 10, 2000, at 17:42:37
> Do you think that everyone is either "wise" or "a fool?"Excellent point Elizabeth!
Rational people can act very irrational (foolish) during intense stress -- such as in "crimes of passion."
Further, we are subjective -- we each see the world from a different perspective -- and the same act (or person) is seen as wise by some and foolish by others. The irrational action mentioned above may also be seen as heroic.
Posted by jamie on January 11, 2000, at 1:41:18
In reply to Re: Here's another Diane: Internet Drug Sales article, posted by Elizabeth on January 10, 2000, at 17:42:37
> > I don't fear drugs or guns. I fear the people who abuse them. Drugs and guns are mere inanimate objects by themselves. They are lifesavers in the hands of the wise. They are killers only in the the hands of a fool.
>
> Do you think that everyone is either "wise" or "a fool?"No. It isn't that simple obviously. I was just trying to make a point that it's the person handling the thing that's dangerous or not, not the object by itself. And that drugs and guns have benefits as well as dangers, depending on who uses them. Any blame for misuse belongs to the person, not the tool used.
jamie
Posted by jamie on January 11, 2000, at 2:00:51
In reply to Re: Here's another Diane: Internet Drug Sales article, posted by Zeke on January 10, 2000, at 21:02:21
I mostly agree with you except that it's my opinion (just an opinion) that guns have more benefits than realized. This USA would not even have been born without guns. Guns protect us from anarchy and criminals. It's ironic that states and countries with the fewest gun restrictions also have the lowest crime rates. So guns benefit everyone. The black market will always exist, which means criminals will always have guns. One way or the other. When non-criminals have guns, it keeps the criminals in check. Just imagine the carnage that could have been prevented had a couple teachers possessed licenses to carry concealed weapons at Columbine High School in Colorado.
The media is biased sometimes. I say that because everyday there are situations where someone in possession of a gun stopped a crime from happening. They were able to intervene and hold the almost-criminal in custody until the police show up. We only hear about the negative results of guns in the nightly news. There are in actuality more positive events that occur, yet we never hear of them in the news. That contributes to a lopsided general opinion of guns.
I think if most drugs were legalized we would see drug use drop, not increase. Again it's just an opinion and there is no way we will ever find out the truth. So in most ways we agree, with some minor differences.
Back to the original topic of this thread, I think there are much higher priorities the government should focus on than either drugs or guns. Things like schools and the military. Things that are the backbone and the foundation of our freedom and our prosperity.
jamie
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.