Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Meth legal unless your dealer isnt government

Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 1:20:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Aderol, ridalin, and " are the same molecularly. All 3 are methamphetamine. Why can the government hand a 9 year old meth and they take it in public, and it's not villainized by media and law enforcement? But an adult does it alone in their own basement and it's criminal? Some say, well Aderol and Ridalin are "FDA approved". The FDA is notoriously known for quickly approving nonproven medications by pressure from government, lobbyists, and kiclbacks. FDA products are constantly recalled in staggering numbers because so many people were adversel effected that the FDA couldn't hide the issue. So I reiterate, why can't people do or take what they want in the privacy of their own home?
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 8:01:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Have you got evidence of the FDA rushing certain medications through its approval process? I'm honestly asking. I don't know much about this topic.

I don't think that drug prohibition is effective or ethical. Not only does prohibition create wealthy and powerful criminal organizations like the Mafia and the Cartels, but I staunchly believe that as a citizens in a free country we reserve the right to destroy ourselves as we see fit.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:24:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 1:20:51 AM, Sooner wrote:
Aderol, ridalin, and " are the same molecularly. All 3 are methamphetamine. Why can the government hand a 9 year old meth and they take it in public, and it's not villainized by media and law enforcement? But an adult does it alone in their own basement and it's criminal? Some say, well Aderol and Ridalin are "FDA approved". The FDA is notoriously known for quickly approving nonproven medications by pressure from government, lobbyists, and kiclbacks. FDA products are constantly recalled in staggering numbers because so many people were adversel effected that the FDA couldn't hide the issue. So I reiterate, why can't people do or take what they want in the privacy of their own home?

This is the case for must drugs.

It isn't illegal to sell or use drugs, technically. It isn't legal to sell or use drugs in an unregulated fashion from unregulated and/or unauthorized dealers. Part of that regulation is that the use of drugs cannot be for recreational use. That is very slowly changing, but in the meanwhile, it is due to a belief that deregulation is a slippery slope that can lead to the government's support of dangerous or unhealthy behavior. One can argue that there are other ways that the government supports dangerous or unhealthy behavior, chiefly in terms of food, but food is essential, whereas drugs are not. Unhealthy foods result from a combination of supply, demand, and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, they are endemic in a system that runs on those tenets. Drugs, on the other hand, can be construed as inherently dangerous and/or unhealthy and also, inessential. Those that are being disproved as inherently dangerous and/or unhealthy, at least to the degree that other recreational products are (such as tobacco and alcohol) are the ones most deregulated, such as marijuana.

One can also argue that the greatest reason why drugs are being left in the hands of pharmaceutical companies rather than the layman, is because it would dilute the industry, snatching billions from them, and interest groups are trying to prevent that. It would also explain marijuana deregulation, because pharm companies don't lose much money by their deregulation (although they have, for decades, attempted to affirm a grip on it, counteracted by the fact that marijuana was recreational and black market first and foremost, preventing that, as well).
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 12:26:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
On that note, whereas I do support drug deregulation to a degree, and more reasonable sentencing for their "criminal" sale and use at the very least, I do not support recreational meth. It is very dangerous, and the means by which it's produced recreationally, even more so. It is simply no good for its users, and there are probably better uses for their time and better ways to achieve those sensations.