The War On Drugs

I'm not lawyer enough to answer that. In 1973 I was too busy trying to pass Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics and Electromagnetic Field Theory to notice. Heck, that's 50 years ago. If I had noticed... I'd have forgotten by now. So I'll just concentrate on current law.

 

Yes

 

So then you believe that pharma companies like Pfizer, Moderna and Glaxosmith Kline, would get into the business of manufacturing drugs which fuel crime and destroy communities.

 

Fuel crime? How?

 

You've never known what Roe v Wade was about?

 

Slavery was legal in the 1860's. That really has no relevance anymore. Abortion laws were different in 1973. That has no relevance anymore either.

 

Well, if you suffer from the right health conditions, you too can get things like fentanyl and even cocaine (yes, that cocaine) prescribed to you! I was given fentanyl just last week when I was once again in the ER suffering from an obstructed bowel. I don't use it recreationally, but... IF I wanted to, I would rather buy it from a corner drug store (Walgreens, CVS, Duane Read, whatever) than a corner dealer, and it doesn't have to be the same exact price, just close. That way, I am mostly (on the order of 5 9's) assured that I will get what I asked for, in a known quantity and purity, and not get fentanyl when what I want is xanax!

Don't worry about who is going to make it, when there is money to be made, especially legal money, if the big, existing guys don't get in on it (and they probably will because money!), someone will! Just look at all the thousands of legal retail weed stores that exist today that our parents in the 70s, 80s. and 90s would have been both shocked and horrified that such a dangerous, illegal street drug that will addict you and kill you if you even look at it is for sale next door to a bodega.

 

Do you or do you not know what Roe v Wade was about?

 

How can cocaine be prescribed?

The idea is, that if METH was legalised, it would be regulated in the same way as pharmaceutical drugs. Which obviously means that not just anyone could manufacture and sell it.

And you continue to equate meth to weed.

 

What's with this hatred of meth? What is it to you if anyone puts it into their body, which I assume you claim they own?

 

Of course I do.

You think 50 year old laws that have been overturned still have relevance. I disagreed. I simply referred to legalized slavery as a similar old law that is no longer relevant. So why the insult?

 

Um, am I misunderstanding the question? It's prescribed the same way all other prescription drugs are, though it may be like some of the other meds that I have been given in the hospital that they simply won't prescribe for you in a home environment, but I haven't used it to my knowledge, so I'm by no means certain.

Well, actually, when you set issues of copyright and patents aside for discussion's sake, pretty much 'anyone' can become a manufacturer, it just takes a shitload of money up front, as there are lots of... Get this... QA concerns, which is one of the reasons I so strongly endorse legalization, because so very many deaths labeled as 'death by illegal drugs' are in fact more related to a lack of that than to using drugs in the first place. As just one example, it would appear that most, if not virtually all fentanyl deaths are intentional poisonings, not overdoses, because the victims aren't even taking fentanyl on purpose!

When it comes to the question of bodily autonomy, and limiting a person's RIGHT to consume whatever they would like to inside their own bodies, regardless of what harm it may cause those bodies, a drug is a drug is a drug.

 

Oh, just that it destroys communities. Nothing major.

Well if that person then goes onto commit a crime against me, or one of my friends or family members, fuelled by the meth.

 

Ah, well if someone commits a crime and they are conviced, then they ought to be punished, whether drugs are involved or not.

But just to clarify, do you agree or disagree that a person's body is their own?

 

Obviously, but this has no bearing on whether or not certain drugs should be illegal due to the crime that they fuel.

I agree that a person's body is their own, which has absolutely no bearing on drug manufacturing and dealing. Drug use should be legal.

 

A person's body is their own? So they changed the policy since the China Virus?

 

Using drugs? Putting drugs in one's own body should be illegal? By what justification are we making people doing something to their own body illegal?

 

Who is "they?"

 

The "they" that mandated you put a vaccine in your body.

 

They only fuel crime because they're illegal.

 

Well, a person's body SHOULD be their own.

 

What the hell are you talking about? You're gonna tell me that drugs have never led to someone committing a crime?

 

See where I said that "drug use should be legal?"

 

Oh, just that it destroys communities. Nothing major. Do you think that the stuff is totally harmless?

 

Alright, fine, you have exposed just how little I know about drugs. I didn't even know that cocaine was a medication. I just thought that it was an illicit substance purely for recreational use.

Anyone can start a pharmaceutical company?

A lack of what?

This has nothing to do with drug manufacturing and dealing.