Login
Site Search
Trauma-List Subscription

Subscribe

Would you like to receive list emails batched into one daily digest?
No Yes
Modify Your Subscription

Modify

Home > List Archives

AW: Drug (ab)use in Medicine?

trauma-list@trauma.org trauma-list@trauma.org
Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:06:25 +0200


Pret,
=20
I usually don't comment on other that strictly trauma issues, but there =
is a
first time for everything (in a broader sense, the topic is trauma
prevention).
You are completely right, of course.
All types of drugs should be legalized, with the restrictions you =
mentioned.
This would save a lot of money, and drug-related crime would become a =
thing
of the past (there are no alcohol-related gang wars like during the
prohibition, or are there?).
The major obstacle to this that there are many agencies (DEA, whole =
police
departments) which would run out of business, too, and bureaucrats are =
most
effective when they defend their kingdoms - therefore, any changes are
unlikely.
=20
Best regards from an European liberal
Walter =20
=20

-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Bjorn, Pret [mailto:pbjorn@emh.org]
Gesendet am: Dienstag, 11. Juni 2002 22:48
An: 'trauma-list@trauma.org'
Betreff: RE: Drug (ab)use in Medicine?


I'll admit going in that I haven't paid any attention to this =
conversation
so far.  Sometimes a thread has to linger awhile before it catches my
attention.  So frankly, I don't know whose side I'm joining here.  It =
makes
me feel so pure somehow...

Me, I say legalize 'em all.  We've over-criminalized what's basically a
health problem, and it's been our undoing.

In the absence of prohibition, farmers could grow poppies and cannabis
alongside their corn (and tobacco), and sell their FDA-approved product
legally--even with hefty federal and state taxes--at a price =
competitive
with anybody in Columbia or Turkey.  It'd put the cartels and the crime
bosses and (some of) the terrorists out of business, practically =
overnight.
The military approach has failed us for generations; I suggest we give =
free
enterprise and American agricultural science a crack at it.

Removing the steep profit, in turn, amputates any financial incentive =
to
push drugs to kids on the street--at least to the extent that we've =
been
able to do as much for alcohol and tobacco.  Not too impressive a track
record, I grant you, but we're getting better at it every year.  =
Dealers no
longer get rich, and perhaps one or two would-be dealers opts for =
college
instead.  Fewer transactions ending in gunfire, fewer teens turning to
prostitution and property crime... I'm not seeing a down side here.

Drug criminalization could well be guided by precisely the standards =
we've
adopted for alcohol: provision or sale to minors remains prohibited, =
crimes
committed while under the influence are compounded.  Simple possession =
or
use, however, is one's own business, and asking for help would no =
longer be
synonymous with admitting you're a criminal.=20

For those of you who are wondering by now: I'm dead serious.  Indeed, =
I'm
baffled that there's any need even to debate.  But nobody listens to =
me.

I could go on and on, of course--I can go on and on about navel lint.  =
But
what fascinates me most about this whole issue is how liberals like me =
tend
to take a demonstrably conservative approach to drug policy, while
conservatives like Bush and Ashcroft favor strict government control.=20

How'd we ever end up THAT way?  There has to be more to it than
conservatives' proclivity toward the wrong side of arguments...

Pret Bjorn, RN, and so forth.
Former Inhaler.
But you probably wouldn't know to look at me.



-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Pasley [  <mailto:rpasley@marmotmountain.com>
mailto:rpasley@marmotmountain.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:30 PM
To: trauma-list@trauma.org
Subject: RE: Drug (ab)use in Medicine?


Dave,

As a "cop" would you enforce a law that you found to be morally wrong?
What about one you just didn't agree with?  I don't doubt that you can
wreck your car while stoned. You can also do that if you've been up all
night or trying to unwrap that burrito.  Those assault cases you speak =
of?
If someone is upset or unbalanced I doubt if the "weed" is what set =
them
over the edge.  I know someone who has AIDS and cancer.  They were
suffering from "wasting" dropping an alarming amount of weight.  He =
started
on some medicine that seemed to help.  The problem  is that it's  =
expensive
and he had to take periodic blood tests to make sure his liver (and
kidneys?) weren't being damaged.  Turns out this medicine was pretty =
toxic
stuff.  Then he got a medical marijuana card, started smoking, threw =
his
pills away, and gained his weight back.  So Dave, would you pop him for
smoking?  For possession?  What if he didn't live in California and =
instead
resided in your "neck of the woods"?  I'm not saying you have to like =
pot
or even agree that it should be decriminalized.  However there are a
multitude of things harmful to us that are legal, like eating too many
donuts (and of course tobacco and booze).  I would never advocate =
driving
while under the influence and certainly not working under the =
influence.
BUT how unfortunate that all those EMS personnel out there that like to
occasionally  have a toke on their own free time, as mature adults in a
free society, those who put their lives and health on the line daily in
order to save others,  well it's a crying shame that they have to sneak
around as dirty little criminals risking freedom and career.

Freedom all the way baby (as long as you don't hurt others)!!

Russ



--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
 <http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html>
http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html