weed, marry jane, tree, pot, grass, herb, bud, sticky icky
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
Yep. Which is exactly why I think that when pharmaceutical companies advertise prescription medicines direct to consumers (most of whom are not physicians), their sleaze is showing. It's kinda tough to pack all those years of college, premed, internships and doctoral thesis into a 30 second prime time spot.TQWcS wrote:You know most doctors actually go to medical school and know what these drugs do and how to dose them.
Regards,
mrmufin
-
potwalloper.
- Scholar
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:09 pm
- Location: London, UK
Post #62
Different drugs have different effects on human behaviour. Alcohol is one of the drugs that is most likely to alter trait-based elements of human personality such that violent behaviour may be a consequence - however this is dependent upon the individual traits for that person prior to alcohol intake and the important word here is may. Alcohol is not, of course, illegal in most Western societies.With all recreational drugs it isn't that simple. It's not like you just take them and sit there. I can't count how many times someone on drugs has wanted to fight me.
The key issue, of course, is that it is the individual not the drug that is truly responsible. Ban a drug like cannabis and people will turn to alcohol instead. Ban alcohol and people will eat magic mushrooms. Ban the mushrooms and people will sniff solvents...
There are predispositions to alcohol/drug abuse that come out when carrying out personality profiles using trait-based instruments such as 16PF that are remarkably accurate. There is not, to my knowledge, a separate profile for drug abuse as opposed to alcohol abuse - the two appear to be the same construct.
One of the key reasons for allowing drug use is that it will happen no matter what you do. Make it illegal and people will turn to illegality to feed their habit, committing crimes or turning to prostitution to obtain the necessary money to buy their next fix. If drugs were made legal and free this would not happen.
In my experience (I deal with a lot of people who abuse drugs) an increase in availability would be unlikely to increase the volume of drug use per se as it would not alter personal predispositions for this type of behaviour. It may, of course, alter the drug use profile, with some who abuse alcohol turning to other drugs, but the impact on society as a whole would be unlikely to be as severe as the current underclass of desparate junkies who will do anything to obtain a fix and it would free up many from the slave trade who are "owned" by pimps and are forced to commit prostitution to feed their habit - widespread across many areas of the World.
Legalising drugs would also be likely to reduce the spread of Aids via sharing needles and would move rehabilitation away from methadone or other substitutes which can be more damaging than heroin.
I have spent many years working with those who abuse alcohol and other drugs. Making drugs illegal simply drives the habit underground and makes my task that much harder. I have lost count of the number of people I have known who have died through the use of a dirty needle or through injecting questionable drug types/concentrations.
Humans abuse drugs. They always have and they always will. We need to accept this and create a structure of understanding and care that will meet their needs and the needs of society as a whole. An essential part of this is to make drugs freely available to those who need them.
How can I use CBT on a corpse?
Post #63
People won't use it as much if it is illegal. Prohibition of alcohol proved that. I don't see why you are for something just because we are predisposed to do it. Some people are predisposed to have cancer should we allow the chemicals that could increase the chances for this person have cancer be produced in mass quantities? Should we encourage the person to use them?
Post #64
Prohibition of alcohol did nothing of the sort. It just made alcohol more profitable on the black market, drained the resources of the police department needlessly and deprived the government of a tax source. Prohibition of alcohol was a complete failure on all counts. It was wasteful, and it impinged on the rights of the populace to no effect. All it accomplished was to give people like Al Capone more disposable income.TQWcS wrote:People won't use it as much if it is illegal. Prohibition of alcohol proved that.
Post #65
You are completely wrong. Look up the numbers.Prohibition of alcohol did nothing of the sort. It just made alcohol more profitable on the black market, drained the resources of the police department needlessly and deprived the government of a tax source. Prohibition of alcohol was a complete failure on all counts. It was wasteful, and it impinged on the rights of the populace to no effect. All it accomplished was to give people like Al Capone more disposable income.
Post #66
Prohibition of alcohol didn't eliminate the use of alcohol, it only turned booze into a dangerous, illegal business. Also important to note is that during prohibition the enforcement and jurisprudence of trafficking were considerably different. Nowadays, there are a variety of "incentives" for law enforcement agencies in many jurisdictions to specifically target drug traffickers. Yep... Ya see, in today's model, the property of a trafficking suspect can be confiscated --and even auctioned off-- before trial. And if that ain't enough, it is not at all uncommon for the auction proceeds from properties confiscated from suspects to directly benefit the arresting agency. This may someday translate to something like:TQWcS wrote:People won't use it as much if it is illegal. Prohibition of alcohol proved that.
McGarrett: "TQWcS, I am placing you under arrest for sale and distribution of heroin."
TQ: "But, I never..."
McGarrett: "Take it away, Dan-O, his new Jaguar convertible. How much horse ya think he had to push on kids in order too afford a snappy car like that, Dan-O?"
Dan-O: "Quite a bit, I'd say. Those wheels oughtta fetch a pretty penny at auction on Tuesday."
TQ: "Hey! My arraignment isn't until Thursday! You guys can't do that! How'm I going to afford an attorney if you take all my stuff! What the..."
McGarrett: "Once we split with the DA and the public defender's office, we should have enough left over to buy something real nice for Five-0."
Regards,
mrmufin
Post #67
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this"
-Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
Sources :
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article ... on.alcohol Look particularly at the graph with regards to homicides between 1900 and 1995.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIB ... c/nc2a.htm
"The early experience of the Prohibition era gave the government a taste of what was to come. In the three months before the 18th Amendment became effective, liquor worth half a million dollars was stolen from Government warehouses. By midsummer of 1920, federal courts in Chicago were overwhelmed with some 600 pending liquor violation trials (Sinclair, 1962: 176-177). Within three years, 30 prohibition agents were killed in service. "
AVERAGE AGE AT FORMATION OF DRINK HABIT
Period Males Females
1914 21.4 27.9
1920-23 20.6 25.8
1936-37 23.9 31.7
How about we try that one again? Prohibition was a failure.
-Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
Sources :
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article ... on.alcohol Look particularly at the graph with regards to homicides between 1900 and 1995.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIB ... c/nc2a.htm
"The early experience of the Prohibition era gave the government a taste of what was to come. In the three months before the 18th Amendment became effective, liquor worth half a million dollars was stolen from Government warehouses. By midsummer of 1920, federal courts in Chicago were overwhelmed with some 600 pending liquor violation trials (Sinclair, 1962: 176-177). Within three years, 30 prohibition agents were killed in service. "
AVERAGE AGE AT FORMATION OF DRINK HABIT
Period Males Females
1914 21.4 27.9
1920-23 20.6 25.8
1936-37 23.9 31.7
How about we try that one again? Prohibition was a failure.
Post #68
Hmmm...this looks like a bald assertion. Perhaps it would be more compelling to supply the numbers you use to support your argument. It's really hard to assess the significance of a statement if it is just an unsupported assertion (though, I must admit, it's easier to make the simple assertions--something to which I am not immune, either.)TQWcS wrote:You are completely wrong. Look up the numbers.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #69
I am sure your father is an excellent physician, completely above reproach. This does not change the fact that there are numerous drugs available for any given condition, providing that condition is profitable enough. I won't bring your father into this, but I ask you: if drug A and drug B have the same effect on the body (same side effects, same testing history, & in all other ways identical) and the patient asks for drug A, which one is the doctor most likely to prescribe? How much of a difference between drugs A and B does there have to be before the patient's wishes are outweighed by the clinical indications involved?TQWcS wrote:This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. My dad has been a doctor for over 20 years and is the head of many health related organizations, and the most he has received from pharmaceutical companies is pens, note pads, and ocassionally a drug rep will pay for his dinner if they see him out. Most good doctors don't just give drugs out because a person asks for them. When my Dad is on call I have heard him turn down people's requests for drugs on many occassions.
Contrary to your experience, it has been my experience on the other side of the hospital, that patients will ask for drugs that doctors do not think they strictly need. When patients ask for antibiotics when there is no clinical reason to do so (e.g. for a cold), more often than not, the doctor will prescribe the antibiotics despite the knowledge that doing so decreases the effectiveness of the antibiotic in the population as a whole. I find it difficult to believe that doctors -- again, on the whole -- will go against patient wishes on conditions like these.
The only reason I bring up this argument is to postulate that pharmaceutical companies run the show. Whether their means is via an uninformed or misinformed public or an uncaring HMO infrastructure, they have an obligation to their shareholders to exploit every avenue of profit on their products. None of them has any interest in seeing marijuana legalized
It's interesting that they didn't do this in the first place. Why make a pill for a condition that produces extreme nausea? Almost as if they didn't really care about the end-result of their products, don't you think?Well I am sure they could make it where you just hold it under your tongue. Thats how some of the stomach relaxers work.
If Marinol is OK and tobacco is OK, why isn't marijuana OK?
Post #70
Well for the first thing I would say the doctor would go with the cheaper drug for the patient. In my experience doctors just want to help. There is one reason doctors overprescribe medicines... Lawyers. If you don't give them antibiotics they will sue you. If you give them painkillers and they get addicted they sue you. If you don't give them painkillers they sue you. In our current justice system doctors are at a lose lose situation.I am sure your father is an excellent physician, completely above reproach. This does not change the fact that there are numerous drugs available for any given condition, providing that condition is profitable enough. I won't bring your father into this, but I ask you: if drug A and drug B have the same effect on the body (same side effects, same testing history, & in all other ways identical) and the patient asks for drug A, which one is the doctor most likely to prescribe? How much of a difference between drugs A and B does there have to be before the patient's wishes are outweighed by the clinical indications involved?
Contrary to your experience, it has been my experience on the other side of the hospital, that patients will ask for drugs that doctors do not think they strictly need. When patients ask for antibiotics when there is no clinical reason to do so (e.g. for a cold), more often than not, the doctor will prescribe the antibiotics despite the knowledge that doing so decreases the effectiveness of the antibiotic in the population as a whole. I find it difficult to believe that doctors -- again, on the whole -- will go against patient wishes on conditions like these.
