Modify Your Subscription
Home > List Archives
AW: Drug (ab)use in Medicinefirstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:06:25 +0200
- Previous message: Virus
- Next message: Drug (ab)use in Medicine?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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:firstname.lastname@example.org] Gesendet am: Dienstag, 11. Juni 2002 22:48 An: 'email@example.com' 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:firstname.lastname@example.org> mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:30 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.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