[personal profile] archerships

Original: craschworks - comments

Via the Washington Post:

Drug manufacturing and distribution is too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals. Drug distribution needs to be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government, and a legal and regulated free market. This simple step would quickly eliminate the greatest threat of violence: street-corner drug dealing.

We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we’re at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.

Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do — for all of us, especially taxpayers. While the financial benefits of drug legalization are not our main concern, they are substantial. In a July referendum, Oakland, Calif., voted to tax drug sales by a 4-to-1 margin. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug w

Date: 2009-11-14 01:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] merccom.livejournal.com
i agree with legalization but i disagree with regulation. i say allow people to regulate there own body chemistry and take the control away from the doctors. everything from asprin to prozac on up to heroin should be avalable without a prescription at the drug store. at least thats what i think.

Date: 2009-11-14 01:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] denshi.livejournal.com
While I like this idea, there still needs to be regulation on the production and distribution side of things to assure quality, purity, and proper labelling.

Date: 2009-11-14 03:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com
I'm not so sure that necessarily has to be done by government. Why can't private companies come into being that would test products for quality, purity, and proper labeling? Then you could choose to buy products with their certification, or not.

Date: 2009-11-14 03:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] denshi.livejournal.com
I don't think that it necessarily has to be done by the government. I believe that the private testing scheme is how the supplements market works. But the government has a history of about a century of safety regulation on consumables so they're the default body.

Date: 2009-11-14 04:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] merccom.livejournal.com
>>>But the government has a history of about a century of safety regulation on consumables so they're the default body.

and the root source of the problem.

Date: 2009-11-14 04:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] denshi.livejournal.com
The government is the source of contaminated products and false labeling?

How do you figure that?

Date: 2009-11-14 05:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] merccom.livejournal.com
more of, the government is the source of the drug war and the incarceration of nonviolent citizens for breaking arbitrary laws.

and speaking of contaminated products and false labeling has the government eleminated that problem with all the money they've spent on it?

Date: 2009-11-14 05:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] denshi.livejournal.com
more of, the government is the source of the drug war and the incarceration of nonviolent citizens for breaking arbitrary laws.

Yes. But I believe the exact topic in this sub-thread is quality assurance of production and distribution. That's not the same as the drug war, horrid as the drug war is.

and speaking of contaminated products and false labeling has the government eleminated[sic] that problem with all the money they've spent on it?

Both foods and drugs are have fewer contaminants and health risks than they did at the turn of the 20th century, before the FDA and ilk were created. Eaten any human thumbs in your burger lately? Bought a medicine without an ingredient list, containing heavy metals and other toxins? Thank the feds.

How exactly were you expecting this problem to be fully eliminated?

Date: 2009-11-14 05:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] merccom.livejournal.com
>>>Both foods and drugs are have fewer contaminants and health risks than they did at the turn of the 20th century, before the FDA and ilk were created. Eaten any human thumbs in your burger lately? Bought a medicine without an ingredient list, containing heavy metals and other toxins? Thank the feds.

this dead horse has beaten into glue way to many times already in the past and i'm not in the mood to bother with it again here.

>>>How exactly were you expecting this problem to be fully eliminated?

i dont expect it to be eliminated so why spend billions of dollars a year on an incureable problem?

Date: 2009-11-14 06:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] denshi.livejournal.com
this dead horse has beaten into glue way to many times already in the past and i'm not in the mood to bother with it again here.

Was there an answer in that? Your line sounds very nonsensical.

i dont expect it to be eliminated so why spend billions of dollars a year on an incureable[sic] problem?

Because a partially solved problem is better than an unsolved problem. How is that not obvious?

Here's another way to think of billions of dollars per year: what is the dollar value of swaths of the population dying or falling ill due to dangerous food and drug supplies?

I'm arguing with a teenager here, right?

Date: 2009-11-14 06:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com
Their history isn't very reassuring.

Date: 2009-11-14 06:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] denshi.livejournal.com
Their history is far better than the null hypothesis.

Date: 2009-11-14 03:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com
I agree, but I think we can do this in increments by first decriminalizing marijuana, then ending the prohibition and restriction of drugs (allowing doctors to prescribe whatever they deem right for a particular patient), and finally going back to allowing every adult to buy whatever they want without a prescription.

Date: 2009-11-14 04:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] merccom.livejournal.com
i wonder if the place to start wouldnt be to start legalizeing prescription medication since they are already "legal" and there medical value is accepted then move on to the unlawful drugs.

Date: 2009-11-14 06:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com
If by legalizing you mean to make them available without a prescription, I agree. Many drugs were already going in that direction until recently. For example, pseudoephedrine used to be available only with a prescription until the 1980's. Then it was easily available on any pharmacy shelf. Now it is available behind the pharmacy counter, and in limited amounts, and you must show ID and allow them to record your personal information before you buy it.