Why are drugs illegal? You asked Google – here’s the answer

originally posted by: ketsuko
Considering Google also auto-completes the phrase "Why is there a dea ..." as "Why is there a dead Pakistani on my couch" you'll excuse me if I take their engine with a bit of a grain of salt.

Is that all you have to contribute? Did you read the article? Did you read my OP?

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I agree ALL drugs should be legalized.

Including all prescription drugs.

We should not be forced to see an MD and pay money
to get antibiotics when we need them, or to get asthma drugs, etc.

Let drug companies off the hook, have them include all side
effects in every package, make it buyer beware.
If someone takes a prescription drug for something it was not
intended for, that is on them, not the drug company.

ALL drugs should be over the counter, all ingredients listed,
all side effects listed, buyer beware, no lawsuits against companies
who clearly list all side effects and ingredients allowed.

This would drastically lower the cost of all drugs
by freeing people from paying $100 or more to an MD
to get a drug they know they need anyway, and lower
health care costs overall.

Have you given this much thought?
What about the well-meaning-but-clueless mother who gives her kid the wrong meds for a sickness and the kid croaks?
Or a side effect causes the kid to get something else?
Or a disgruntled employee/spouse/friend decides that someone needs a good dose of *insert toxic drug name here* ?

Health care costs down? Try up..
Increased medical needs due to incorrect drug usage/unforeseen side effects/unforeseen consequences such as fatigue or being mentally impaired and being injured (falling on stairs, tripping, car crash, kitchen knife accident, etc).
I could name 100 more situations where "free for all prescription drugs" would increase health care costs.
Hell, imagine the sudden demand for certain drugs that were previously restricted...Do you think the drug companies will give it away? No, demand goes up, supply goes down, cost goes up.
Asthma? Do you know how complicated it is to balance the right meds? I do - my son struggled with it for years and several medicine combinations/doses to get it correct to the point where now he plays sports and rides his bike and he's VERY active with no difficulty and doesn't even need a rescue inhaler. So you propose we just let parents wing it? Because that's what's best right?
/rant

I have given this thought.

If illegal drugs are to be made legal.

Then prescription drugs which have the potential
to do both good and harm, as do illegal drugs
should also be made legal.

We should not be subject to a nanny state.

We should be allowed as adults to take personal responsibility.

As long as included in the packaging are all the cautions,
doses, interactions, side effects. Then it lies with the user
to use responsibly.

If the argument is to make illegal drugs legal,
then all drugs should be fully legal.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I'd only agree with this is DTC advertising for pharmaceutical drugs is banned in this country. Until that is done, prescriptions need to be written. A pharmaceutical company marketing drugs to the public will get a LOT worse if that isn't done.

a reply to: grandmakdw

With all due respect, I think that's bat # crazy.

An untrained person cannot make a proper scientific diagnosis of what ails them and properly administer drugs or a balance of drugs to treat things.

Even a simple wrist ache could be joint pain caused by a more complex disease. Dry eyes could be something bigger. Having trained doctors diagnosis an illness and prescribe medications based on education is crucial.

The package can only say so much - the package can't say things like "You really don't need this drug because you actually have this other ailment and it's not what you think".

And I stand by my original statement - drug costs, and overall health care costs, would go way up.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Something we can agree on! I think that prescriptions need to remain regardless though. Even without drug advertising word will spread. People will talk about how Drug X made them feel good/better/best and everyone needs it, even if it isn't what that person actually needs medically.

It's one thing to say "recreational drug use should be decriminalized" (which I don't agree with entirely anyways). It's entirely different to say "medical drugs that are engineered and designed to affect certain systems in your body should be available to anyone at any time at their own discretion". There's way too many complexities to allow untrained people to have free reign over this.

Should certain drugs be less restricted? Such as moderate pain killers, birth control, maybe even very low level antibiotics? I think so, yes. Some drugs simply need to be restricted though.

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Something we can agree on! I think that prescriptions need to remain regardless though. Even without drug advertising word will spread. People will talk about how Drug X made them feel good/better/best and everyone needs it, even if it isn't what that person actually needs medically.

It's one thing to say "recreational drug use should be decriminalized" (which I don't agree with entirely anyways). It's entirely different to say "medical drugs that are engineered and designed to affect certain systems in your body should be available to anyone at any time at their own discretion". There's way too many complexities to allow untrained people to have free reign over this.

Should certain drugs be less restricted? Such as moderate pain killers, birth control, maybe even very low level antibiotics? I think so, yes. Some drugs simply need to be restricted though.

Improper use of recreational drugs
such as Heroin, Cocaine etc
are just as dangerous as prescription drugs

So to be fully intellectually honest, if one
is to decriminalize recreational use of
Heroin, Cocaine, Oxycontin, etc.
one must decriminalize all drugs,
to not be able to obtain a drug without
a prescription is criminalizing drugs, as
there is a criminal penalty for using the
drug without permission from an MD.

Either you decriminalize all that are dangerous,
including prescription, or you leave
decriminalization in place, to do otherwise
is intellectually dishonest

Either you trust people and give them all the
facts when purchasing the products or you
enact a Nanny state and trust no one as we
currently do.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Personal responsibility...i don't disagree with that. But i am envisioning someone stumbling into the store, delirious from fever, and missing that they are allergic to Biaxin, and grab it instead of Bactrim.

It would last as long as a fart in a whirlwind. In a country where people who pour coffee on themselves can sue McDonalds, the public would be utterly outraged at the wave of sick people accidentally killing themselves.

Not saying it needs to be controlled like now. Just that you shoul dhave someone consult like a pharmacist would.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think we all know the real reason that countries like the UK and the US haven't decriminalized certain drugs - And that is the fact that they are some of the biggest drugs cartels that exist, they are the ones making all the free money, or at least the compartmentalized intelligence groups for their questionable expenses.

I mean it wasn't even kept a secret that UK and US forces were tasked to guard poppy fields on more than a few occasions, And we all know about the CIA planes flying coc aine about, I think it was only around 5-6 years ago one crashed with something like 5 tons of coke on board.

To much money involved for the predators in power to ignore.

I am all for decriminalization, speaking as an "ex addict".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

first i have to say i wish they were legal cause drugs are awesome.

to the topic. i read an article a few years back that talked about mj and how/when it became illegal.

had a lot to do with dupont and the booming paper trade. couple that with some heavy propaganda and there where have it.
you know, the ole stories that the evil black man is going to smoke a joint and rape out precious white women or some college kid is going to smoke a bowl and blow his friends face off with a shotgun.

remember these commercials from the 80's?



i also remember one where the dad comes down the hall with a joint in his hand
dad-"son, where did you learn to do this?"
son-"YOU. I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU"

hahahahaha

a reply to: deadeyedick

From what I know of it they did not knowingly drink rubbing alcohol.

I remember seeing something on television about how the government went through several iterations of attempting to "denature" alcohol so that people wouldn't use it for recreational purposes. The first few attempts yielded a product that chemists, who were employed by organized crime, could process to remove the denaturing agent. Eventually the government came up with a solution that could not be effectively removed from industrial usage alcohol.

It reminds me of an unproven practice of the gov. sending in crop dusters into Mexican fields.

I remember back in the 1980s, during the Nancy Reagan administration, when the government started spraying Paraquat on Mexican Cannabis fields. Obviously some of this poison found its way into the American supply chain. I remember some "friends" who smoked Marijuana would joke about the Paraquat content of their dirt weed when they had a coughing fit from inhaling too deeply.


-dex

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's interesting that you mentioned MDMA. I had forgotten about that. Here's some relevant data concerning the criminalization of ecstasy:

After a year of planning and data collection, MDMA was proposed for scheduling by the DEA on 27 July 1984 with a request for comments and objections. The DEA was surprised when a number of psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and researchers objected to the proposed scheduling and requested a hearing. In a Newsweek article published the next year, a DEA pharmacologist stated that the agency had been unaware of its use among psychiatrists.

Urged by Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the DEA announced an emergency Schedule I classification of MDMA on 31 May 1985. The agency cited increased distribution in Texas, escalating street use, and new evidence of MDA (an analog of MDMA) neurotoxicity as reasons for the emergency measure. The ban took effect one month later on 1 July 1985 in the midst of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign

As a result of several expert witnesses testifying that MDMA had an accepted medical usage, the administrative law judge presiding over the hearings recommended that MDMA was classified as a Schedule III substance. Despite this, DEA administrator John C. Lawn overruled and classified the drug as Schedule I. Later Harvard psychiatrist Lester Grinspoon sued the DEA, claiming that the DEA had ignored the medical uses of MDMA, and the federal court sided with Grinspoon, calling Lawn's argument "strained" and "unpersuasive", and vacated MDMA's Schedule I status. Despite this, less than a month later Lawn reviewed the evidence and reclassified MDMA as Schedule I again, claiming that the expert testimony of several psychiatrists claiming over 200 cases where MDMA had been used in a therapeutic context with positive results could be dismissed because they weren't published in medical journals.

So, to make a long story short:

• In 1984, the Government became aware of MDMA being used recreationaly.
  
• The DEA was surprised to find the drug had actual medicinal uses and scheduled hearings concerning scheduling.
  
• Several expert witnesses testified to the medical effectiveness of the drug, and the judge overseeing the hearings directed the DEA to put the drug on Schedule III, meaning that it had legitimate medical usage.
  
• Despite this guidance, the DEA chief put MDMA on Schedule I, meaning the drug had no beneficial medical use.
  
• The DEA was sued and a judge ruled that MDMA should be rescheduled to Schedule III.
  
• Despite this ruling of the court, the DEA chief again rescheduled MDMA under Schedule I because the testimony of the experts in the case had not been published in a medical journal.
  

To quote Wikipedia on the matter:

Despite this, less than a month later Lawn reviewed the evidence and reclassified MDMA as Schedule I again, claiming that the expert testimony of several psychiatrists claiming over 200 cases where MDMA had been used in a therapeutic context with positive results could be dismissed because they weren't published in medical journals.

Why face the truth when a perfectly good lie will do?

-dex

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I really feel like the war on drugs is holding our country back from being what it should be. It is just TOO connected to too many other problems within our country: immigration, urban violence, gun crime, police violence, etc. If we were to totally revamp our drug laws and lessen the penalties for drugs, I'd bet our country would turn around in no time.

This is why I so vehemently support pro-marijuana politicians (and eventually pro-drug politicians, but it's still too early politically for a politicians to safely come out in support of decriminalizing all drugs but eventually it should happen).

Just support....


FREEDOM!!!!!

a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes I remember seeing that commercial in the 80's and the only affect it had was to make me hungry for eggs and bacon.....damn you now I'm hungry again lol.

There is more money in illegal drugs so they will never make them all legal.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

They make Kroco dill purely as a cheap alternative, because the real thing is more expensive and illegal , If the lot was actually decriminalised the price of drugs would crash criminality would crash, and the cops and prison system would crash, so go figure its all a business model.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I agree ALL drugs should be legalized.

Including all prescription drugs.

We should not be forced to see an MD and pay money
to get antibiotics when we need them, or to get asthma drugs, etc.

Let drug companies off the hook, have them include all side
effects in every package, make it buyer beware.
If someone takes a prescription drug for something it was not
intended for, that is on them, not the drug company.

ALL drugs should be over the counter, all ingredients listed,
all side effects listed, buyer beware, no lawsuits against companies
who clearly list all side effects and ingredients allowed.

This would drastically lower the cost of all drugs
by freeing people from paying $100 or more to an MD
to get a drug they know they need anyway, and lower
health care costs overall.

I have to disagree here. Most people are not capable of knowing what prescription drugs they need. I suppose if they had the equipment to run tests, interpret results and choose the proper medication indicated, but then, well, i suppose they would, in most cases, be doctors.

Most people don't even know what antibiotics are for. They think if they have a bad cough that antibiotics would help. If those people were allowed to get antibiotics for themselves, we'd have even more walking 'Superbug' incubators than we do now.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's amazing how one individual can screw over the entire world for years and years to come, all in the name of self progression, regardless of the damage it can cause to everyone else.

Its even more amazing believing this story is all about some random actions of a few people that makes for good movie storylines, than the truth which is far more directed.

I wish I could live in this fantasy world where things are backasswards because of stupid human error only.

The only things you are legally allowed to consume is TV news, perscribed pharmaceuticals, and genetically altered foods.

"Most people don't even know what antibiotics are for. They think if they have a bad cough that antibiotics would help. If those people were allowed to get antibiotics for themselves, we'd have even more walking 'Superbug' incubators than we do now."

I was thinking this as well, dogstar. We already have problems with people who don't use antibiotics correctly (like not finishing the full round of treatment). Misuse of antibiotics would not just threaten the user's life, but also everyone else's.

I'm not against drug legalization, but we need to use some common sense. Different drugs do different things. Treating them differently makes sense. Legalize pot and painkillers and whatever else, but keep drugs that could cause actual public health problems, like antibiotics, restricted.

I am currently consuming a (largely) non-psychoactive variant of a prescription drug which my doctor (my actual doctor - a 40 year family medicine physician) prescribed in oral form for the treatment of insomnia, chronic pain, and depression. It works better for me than synthetic opiates, antidepressants, anxiolytics, or antispasmodics ever did.

I do think there is a reasonable compromise between a free for all, and criminalization. I fully support what I consider reasonable legalization of such substances.

Which, for me, means free access to purchasable substances, with a qualified physician and/or pharmacist on hand to look at your medical history and say, "Btw, you shouldn't take this because you're allergic to X or you're taking Y and they are contraindicated together. Also, this antibiotic class doesn't treat the illness you have." That doesn't limit use or access - it just means a qualified medical professional is dispensing advice. And then whether the patient/user heeds said advice or not is their own call, with the dispenser of the substance legally protected from any form of litigation.

To me that's a reasonable solution, and I support it. If it means more people can get the kind of relief I now can in my state, I'm absolutely all for it. (And I'm someone who has never, ever used such substances recreationally, for the record.)

Peace.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think pot should be taxed and made into a legal business

But hardcore drugs should stay illegal

Ever see someone tripping to oblivion ?

It is not pretty