10 Nov 15
Originally posted by JS357Agreed, and those State and Local experiments prove that legalization is being considered, and is favored by a majority of the population. Getting it right, instead of moving too fast is vital.
On page 289-290 of the Handbook of Drug Control in the United States (available at Googlebooks) the following issues are listed:
What drugs should be legalized?
What potency and purity standards should be set?
What age limits for use should be established?
Where should they be allowed to be sold?
How should raw materials and manufacture be controlled?
...[text shortened]... ch will be learned from the social experiments now underway in some states concerning marijuana.
10 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignSafe doesn't mean absolutely safe. Big pharma has done fine in terms of safety, in general. Sure there are incidents and some bad drugs, but 99.99% of drugs are safe.
Absolutely!
A few hurdles remain. How to make addictive drugs legal, safe and cheap.
Legal is simple. Cheap ought not be too much of a problem. Safe, is problematic. Who is to be in charge? Government has proved not so dependable in regulating prescription drugs, but big pharma hasn't necessarily done much better, either in containing costs or ...[text shortened]... d price.
It is surely true that an addict who is satisfied is safer than one who is jonesing.
When a joint or a line of coke or shot of heroin is as safe (other than its intended and known inherent effects, of course) as Tylenol or Novocaine, we'll be fine on that front.
When I say "safe" I mean that there's no or little risk that the drug is spiked with rat poison or some such.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Nov 15
Originally posted by sh76Like the advent of automobiles, rules of the road will have to be worked out and some of that will be motivated my tragic incidents. My main concern is public safety when users under the influence drive trucks or operate other equipment that can threaten public safety.
Out of curiosity, does anyone believe that state legalization of dope will cause major public safety problems?
Recall that the safety rules for pharmaceuticals are largely the result of two tragedies which can be found by separate google searches on elixer of sulfanilimide and thalidomide. It's not uncommon for understanding of risks and relevant laws to develop this way.
http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/history/productregulation/sulfanilamidedisaster/default.htm
https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation
10 Nov 15
Originally posted by sh76Abusive people are usually the victims of abuse.
In case you've been under a rock for the past few days or pay no attention to the American media, Chris Christie delivering what, by all accounts, was a beautifully delivered and touching defense of compassion for drug addicts.
[youtube]FdYMx7sycW4[/youtube]
I see almost no disagreement or criticism of the speech in the blogosphere or in the social media ...[text shortened]... argue against compassion from drug addicts, why do we still punish drug possession so severely?
Are we going to have compassion for the abused?
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by sh76One of the problems with say the State taking over distribution of heroin is that most of the product sold today is "stepped on" or diluted.
Safe doesn't mean absolutely safe. Big pharma has done fine in terms of safety, in general. Sure there are incidents and some bad drugs, but 99.99% of drugs are safe.
When a joint or a line of coke or shot of heroin is as safe (other than its intended and known inherent effects, of course) as Tylenol or Novocaine, we'll be fine on that front.
When I say " ...[text shortened]... afe" I mean that there's no or little risk that the drug is spiked with rat poison or some such.
Either the State would have to mimic the old distribution system or warn users that their product is pure.
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by JS357Actually, I don't see all that many problems. People have been driving under the influence of drugs for a long time now, and I don't think legalization will increase this by much.
Like the advent of automobiles, rules of the road will have to be worked out and some of that will be motivated my tragic incidents. My main concern is public safety when users under the influence drive trucks or operate other equipment that can threaten public safety.
Recall that the safety rules for pharmaceuticals are largely the result of two tragedies ...[text shortened]... m
https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76"When I say "safe" I mean that there's no or little risk that the drug is spiked with rat poison or some such."
Safe doesn't mean absolutely safe. Big pharma has done fine in terms of safety, in general. Sure there are incidents and some bad drugs, but 99.99% of drugs are safe.
When a joint or a line of coke or shot of heroin is as safe (other than its intended and known inherent effects, of course) as Tylenol or Novocaine, we'll be fine on that front.
When I say " ...[text shortened]... afe" I mean that there's no or little risk that the drug is spiked with rat poison or some such.
That's a very narrow usage of "safe" when it comes to the safety of substances that have pharmacological effects in and of themselves. I suggest any thorough consideration has to touch on other aspects of safety including controls on uniformity of active ingredient content, interactions with other drugs and alcohol, risks associated with overdoses (including extreme constipation associated with excessive heroin use) , adverse reactions in health-compromised populations, fetal damage in pregnancy, etc.
I am sure you are aware of all this but I feel it needed saying to have more of the real issues in front of us.
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by normbenignI don't advocate the state taking over distribution. Just legalize and treat it like any other drug. Put it under the auspices of the FDA and let the free market work.
One of the problems with say the State taking over distribution of heroin is that most of the product sold today is "stepped on" or diluted.
Either the State would have to mimic the old distribution system or warn users that their product is pure.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Nov 15
Originally posted by normbenign"Colorado’s largest detox network said Wednesday that the number of its patients busted for DUI while high on pot has nearly doubled, from 8 percent last year to 15 percent this year."
Actually, I don't see all that many problems. People have been driving under the influence of drugs for a long time now, and I don't think legalization will increase this by much.
“This percentage increase is significant because recreational marijuana legalization is in its infancy and there has clearly already been an impact on public safety,” Art Schut, president and CEO of Arapahoe House, said in a statement. “Our hope is that this new data will create awareness so that if Coloradans choose to use marijuana, they do not get behind the wheel.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/detox-network-sees-pot-duis-spike-colorado-after-legalization-n141231
What the report doesn't say is what these drivers did to get them stopped.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by JS357I don't know what current ability is to determine being under the influence of pot. Perhaps the most likely is that pot heads are prone to actually smoke while driving, unlike the more careful alcohol addicts that leave their booze home.
"Colorado’s largest detox network said Wednesday that the number of its patients busted for DUI while high on pot has nearly doubled, from 8 percent last year to 15 percent this year."
“This percentage increase is significant because recreational marijuana legalization is in its infancy and there has clearly already been an impact on public safety,” Art Sch ...[text shortened]... alization-n141231
What the report doesn't say is what these drivers did to get them stopped.
Other than hair samples, I don't know of any detection method to determine a person to be high on pot. Even the hair sample could be detecting a high of a month ago, not the current one.
13 Nov 15
Originally posted by sh76Because illegal drug possession poses a severe danger to our society and it needs to be stopped. I don't think anyone is against helping those addicted get off drugs if they really want to. However, many don't really want to and it cost us time and money and it is difficult to thrust them to go straight.
In case you've been under a rock for the past few days or pay no attention to the American media, Chris Christie delivering what, by all accounts, was a beautifully delivered and touching defense of compassion for drug addicts.
[youtube]FdYMx7sycW4[/youtube]
I see almost no disagreement or criticism of the speech in the blogosphere or in the social media ...[text shortened]... argue against compassion from drug addicts, why do we still punish drug possession so severely?
14 Nov 15
Originally posted by sh76Possession with intent to distribute should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco. If those drugs can be sold legally, why not much less harmful ones like LSD, shrooms or MDMA?
Many harsh drug laws punish possession of small amounts as well. Of course, I agree that there should be a difference between possession with intent to use and possession with intent to distribute.