On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:13:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Why would a team of medical experts
> who've studied the addictive effects of drugs and the damage they do to
> the human body know more about it than some random guy on the street?

If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm 
terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in 
the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is 
a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF 
SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)

In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even 
chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth 
perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think 
there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* - and 
they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain has 
evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.

Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US, it 
is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states have 
legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have 
medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that 
there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable pain) 
are in favor of it, and it's the anti-science people who think it should 
be left illegal.

What is a real problem with drug use today (at least in the US) is that 
the quality control for those drugs is nonexistent - and that's part (but 
not the entire) of the reason why there are problems with drug users.  
Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of production, 
and you see several positive side effects:

 * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental 
overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next is 
overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).  
 * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such 
as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute). 
 * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you know 
most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some standard 
of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
 * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where 
money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services 
that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
drinking)
 * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing 
violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today

None of the crime reduction benefits is a total reduction, just as you 
see people buying oxycodone on the black market, a black market would 
still exist, but it would be a much smaller black market than it is now.

There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as an 
option in certain circumstances - not just Dr. Kevorkian.  I had a friend 
in the Netherlands (if memory serves - I knew him only online as part of 
a very close group) who had terminal cancer, and he decided he didn't 
want to suffer until he died - so he chose to end his life on his terms, 
and he had the assistance of a qualified and trained medical professional.

Life is a terminal condition, and I personally think it's a little crazy 
that the government and the insurance companies can decide that I should 
*suffer* against my will if I'm in a terminal situation.

But that's a discussion for another day.  It's 3:05 AM here now, and I 
*have* to get some sleep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message