Those who say it’s a major deterrent are kidding themselves. It might shift the production further away, but such shifts are often accompanied by lower prices as economies of scale develop.
And for more fun, the smaller doses when the pharmacies are closed–are, of course, more expensive than the larger packs. The reality is that limiting the number of packages bought in a given transaction would likely be just as effective.
Another good reason to legalize ALL drugs, then tax the hell out of them and enforce laws not selling to minors. It would save us a ton of money, make a ton of money and stop lots of crime. Not to mention waiting in long lines in the drug store because people who are going to do drugs anyway, have to home cook stuff up. Alcohol is a drug, so everything else should be treated just like alcohol. (and nicotine)
I’m only a premed student, and I’m perpetually amazed at how ignorant people are about their own healthcare. The average joe is not, and will never be, properly equipped to make decisions regarding medications on his own. Not only would legalizing all pharmaceuticals cause an increase in addictions, but also in fatalities from people who overdose thinking that while some is good, more is even better.
In short, I’d rather keep the FDA around, thank you very much.
Overdoses happen all the time anyway. If we made all illegal drugs legal we would free up a ton of man power now in pursuit of futile – and very corrupting – endeavors. We would stop wasting millions and millions of dollars on “the war on drugs” which is as big a failure as the “war on terrorism”. And if we taxed all drugs as heavily as we tax cigarettes and alcohol, we could proably balance the budget. Not that I think drug use of any kind, other than what your doctors orders, is ok.
Legalizing is not the same as saying “go ahead kids this stuff is fine to use.” We would still have the age limit in place, just like for alcohol. We could use some of the tax money earned from the sale of drugs to fund “drug use is addicting and not very good for you” campaigns. And we can put on those warning labels, and the three pages of warnings we now get with any perscription from a doctor tacked on to any drug sale.
It would also stop alot of the small crime that happens in many areas, it would stop rewarding the big drug dealers and other public officials who make the big money letting the drugs get to where ever they area going. It would lower our taxes by not having men and women in jail for being simple drug addicts. If you are a drug addict you need help and treatment, not punishment and jail time. (They’ll get plenty of punishment and jail time from their actions while being under the influence anyway.)
I’m an ex drinker and drugger. I know how addicting stuff can be. I do not at all think using drugs is a good idea. But I also can see that the “war on drugs” has been lost. We need to try something different. Tax drugs. Keep them away from minors. Continue to teach kids that drug use is unacceptable.
Look at alcohol. It used to be funny to see the drunk. Cops used to laugh and let them keep on driving home. Drunk drivers aren’t funny any more. Drunks aren’t funny any more. Look at nicotine. Smoking used to be seen as cool and glamorous. Now it’s not. We can make inappropriate drug use socially unacceptable also. Peer pressure -for kids and adults – is more effective than any law.
And if I re-call correctly, in Amsterdam and other countries where drugs are legal, they have no higher rates of overdose or addiction than in places where drugs are illegal.
Perhaps you all need to look at this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060104/od_nm/homeless_dc
Free booze makes homeless healthier?
TORONTO (Reuters) – Giving homeless alcoholics a regular supply of booze may improve their health and their behavior, the Canadian Medical Association Journal said in a study published on Tuesday.
Seventeen homeless adults, all with long and chronic histories of alcohol abuse, were allowed up to 15 glasses of wine or sherry a day — a glass an hour from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. — in the Ottawa-based program, which started in 2002 and is continuing.
After an average of 16 months, the number of times participants got in trouble with the law had fallen 51 percent from the three years before they joined the program, and hospital emergency room visits were down 36 percent.
“Once we give a ‘small amount’ of alcohol and stabilize the addiction, we are able to provide health services that lead to a reduction in the unnecessary health services they were getting before,” said Dr. Jeff Turnbull, one of the authors of the report.
“The alcohol gets them in, builds the trust and then we have the opportunity to treat other medical diseases… It’s about improving the quality of life.”
Three of the 17 participants died during the program, succumbing to alcohol-related illnesses that might have killed them anyway, the study said.
The report showed that participants in the program drank less than they did before signing up, and their sleep, hygiene, nutrition and health levels all improved.
The per capita cost of around C$771 ($660) a month was partially offset by monthly savings of C$96 a month in emergency services, C$150 in hospital care and C$201 in police services per person.
Turnbull said some of the people enrolled in the program had stopped drinking altogether, although that was not an option for many of the participants.
“We agree 100 percent that abstinence is the most appropriate route,” he said. “But in this subset of people where abstinence has failed, there is still a need to provide care.”
Every state that has put these drugs behind the counter has seen a huge drop in meth lab busts and related crime. Dries up the supply. It works and its good that the Democrats from Lisa Madigan to Governor Blagojevich and Genral assembly were all over this.
Its a little inconvenient for sure, but having a kid in some rural town (where this is a real problem)addicted to this crap is 1,000 times worse.
On one point there is a drop in the meth labs, but it doesn’t deal with the addiction–and in fact, my guess is that much like the destruction of cartels, has introduced innovation into the meth market and will probably lower the price in the long run.
And yes, meth lab reduction is a huge thing in rural areas especially. I’d still argue a limit on the amount of pseudophedrine at any single purchase would accomplish about the same–and if not, I’d argue that what is really needed is a tracking system where purchasers information is put into a database so that multiple purchases at several locations is captured.
Any guesses on how long the speech will go today? 😉
Pete Giangreco;
Why would I care about “some kid” – that’s his problem and his immediate supervisors and I absolutely don’t understand why should I be treated as a potential criminal because of that kid’s problem ?
This is the same issue as with guns – if Chicago has a crime problem, let them deal with it , I don’t need their stupid gun laws exported downstate where crime is not an issue.