Governments should be investing large sums in researching cheap, safe, non-addictive versions of drugs with the various narcotic effects people desire. The government-regulated supply of these with "antidote" drugs which immediately reverse or minimise the effect would easily pay for that research.
People have the right to take drugs if they want to, but also the right not to be damaged by them. Most importantly, people who don't take drugs shouldn't be endangered, threatened, or robbed by those who do.
I'm quite sure these things you mention in your first paragraph already have been undertaken.
Every drug, or chemical compound that might have purpose as a drug, is heavily researched and constantly updated, improved, studied further and so on.
Opiates are widely used as legal, prescription painkillers. Some are more synthetic while others are quite natural (Morphine, for example). These prescription drugs are a pharmaceutical herion, although they are more powerful than heroin as they are engineered to be more effective. There is tons of research on these drugs-how to make them effective using their narcotic properties while reducing their addictiveness. There's a furious race to find the answer to this problem. Methadone is a substance used to keep a person off heroin or other opiates (it's also a painkiller itself), but it blocks the effects of herion so the user gets no pleasure if they tried to use an opiate.
MDMA (Extasy) was created for a medical purpose, it was taken from Germany as a spoil of war and studied (still) extensively. It is thought to have significant medical potential in the psychology field but the problem encountered is how to harness it and use it in a more safe way.
Cocaine has medical purpose as an anesthetic, it is used in eye surgery as there is no superior drug in existance to use. They have made progress on a cocaine "vaccine" which blocks it from giving the user a pleasurable feeling.
There is a prescription drug called Marinol, I'm not sure if it is totally synthetic or not, but it is supposed to mimic the effects of marijuana.
Any common drug typically already has an "antidote" (of sorts, at least), hospitals deal with overdoses every day!!
Didn't mean to write an essay there!! Point is, drugs, antidotes and substitues or safer, less addictive forms of them are studied extensively.
You kind of backed up my argument there. Many recreational drugs are drugs initially designed for a medical purpose, whose side effects are desirable. They are drugs that were synthesised, engineered, and brought to market for their primary purpose (often pain relief) and abused for secondary effects.
What I'm suggesting is research on new drugs whose primary effect is not to kill pain, or have any medical benefit whatsover necessarily, but are created solely for a chosen narcotic effect on the brain.
Yes, I completely understand what you are saying.....what I am saying is that the drugs that are desirable for their "high" are most certainly being tested in every which way possible for every reason possible for every use possible. The pharma industry is a billions upon billions of dollars industry and they get that way by making new drugs. They make new drugs for every reason you can imagine-to treat a disease ultimately, and to make profits. If they could make synthetic, non-addictive drugs to replace natural street drugs, they either have or they're working on it as we speak.
I'm going to be as delicate as I can about what I say next because it could get me in a lot of trouble. My first "proper" job was for a pharmaceuticals company. The second job, and the one I still have, still involves pharmacists but isn't directly in pharmaceutical manufacture.
Pharmaceutical companies, like any other, exist to make profit. The most profit that can be had is with a patient who requires expensive drugs and doesn't get better. Where a cheap drug will cure, research is supressed until as much money as possible has been wrung out of the expensive drugs which merely treat the symptoms. Patients die because of this.
It's for this very reason that I'm amazed pharmaceuticals companies aren't working on custom narcotics like those I originally described. It's a pharmaco CEO's wet dream. I can only assume there are regulations in place because it's seen as a rather seedy business to be manufacturing recreational drugs.
And this, for me, is the problem. I would relax those regulations immediately, before I would slacken drug laws. For reasons I can only guess at, the current status quo is obviously attractive enough to someone in power that they won't mess with it.
What gets me is the billions they spend to test synthetic drugs. A few natural substances have received the attention (st. Johns Wort, garlic, cranberry) but no one will put up the money to test the healing properties of things they can't get a patent for.
Did you hear about the "fake pot" that was recently banned by the DEA? Scientists are trying to synthetically mimic pot. And oops, turns out the chemicals can cause seizures. Ironically, real pot can help them. Sounds like a waste of money to me. And government regulation has it's pros and cons. The motives of such regulations can be fueled by greed. (i.e. drug companies that profit off of quick fix treatments- they don't actually want to cure people, just keep them alive)
I think a good course of action is to decriminalize drugs. Marijuana is mostly legal where I live and the cops can focus on more violent criminals(in theory). But at least my tax dollars aren't wasted on enforcing the punishment of a pot head when the focus should be on meth makers. And throwing an addict in jail does not solve the problem. They need psychological help.
I did, yes. I almost mentioned it in the post (and methadone being a really poor substitute for opiates) but my posts are often overlong as it is, so I didn't bother.
I was imagining research on a much wider scale, though (a ten year or twenty year study with funding of billions of euros/pounds/dollars, and extensive clinical trials). If after all that, it's not possible, then so be it. But at least we tried to solve one of the world's many problems.
I wouldent think so. Granted, they will be much safer and more controlled, but the corporations that handle the drugs could actually make them more addictive. (They could make them less addictive, but they want to amke more money!!!! Why do you think tobacco companies make so much?
Opponents of drug legalization, what are your reasons?
← View full post
Governments should be investing large sums in researching cheap, safe, non-addictive versions of drugs with the various narcotic effects people desire. The government-regulated supply of these with "antidote" drugs which immediately reverse or minimise the effect would easily pay for that research.
People have the right to take drugs if they want to, but also the right not to be damaged by them. Most importantly, people who don't take drugs shouldn't be endangered, threatened, or robbed by those who do.
--
wreckd
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
-
Anonymous Post Author
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
howaminotmyself
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Legion
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I wish I had your brain. Gahh.
--
dappled
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Ironically, I often wish I hadn't. :)
I'm quite sure these things you mention in your first paragraph already have been undertaken.
Every drug, or chemical compound that might have purpose as a drug, is heavily researched and constantly updated, improved, studied further and so on.
Opiates are widely used as legal, prescription painkillers. Some are more synthetic while others are quite natural (Morphine, for example). These prescription drugs are a pharmaceutical herion, although they are more powerful than heroin as they are engineered to be more effective. There is tons of research on these drugs-how to make them effective using their narcotic properties while reducing their addictiveness. There's a furious race to find the answer to this problem. Methadone is a substance used to keep a person off heroin or other opiates (it's also a painkiller itself), but it blocks the effects of herion so the user gets no pleasure if they tried to use an opiate.
MDMA (Extasy) was created for a medical purpose, it was taken from Germany as a spoil of war and studied (still) extensively. It is thought to have significant medical potential in the psychology field but the problem encountered is how to harness it and use it in a more safe way.
Cocaine has medical purpose as an anesthetic, it is used in eye surgery as there is no superior drug in existance to use. They have made progress on a cocaine "vaccine" which blocks it from giving the user a pleasurable feeling.
There is a prescription drug called Marinol, I'm not sure if it is totally synthetic or not, but it is supposed to mimic the effects of marijuana.
Any common drug typically already has an "antidote" (of sorts, at least), hospitals deal with overdoses every day!!
Didn't mean to write an essay there!! Point is, drugs, antidotes and substitues or safer, less addictive forms of them are studied extensively.
--
dappled
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
You kind of backed up my argument there. Many recreational drugs are drugs initially designed for a medical purpose, whose side effects are desirable. They are drugs that were synthesised, engineered, and brought to market for their primary purpose (often pain relief) and abused for secondary effects.
What I'm suggesting is research on new drugs whose primary effect is not to kill pain, or have any medical benefit whatsover necessarily, but are created solely for a chosen narcotic effect on the brain.
--
Anonymous Post Author
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, I completely understand what you are saying.....what I am saying is that the drugs that are desirable for their "high" are most certainly being tested in every which way possible for every reason possible for every use possible. The pharma industry is a billions upon billions of dollars industry and they get that way by making new drugs. They make new drugs for every reason you can imagine-to treat a disease ultimately, and to make profits. If they could make synthetic, non-addictive drugs to replace natural street drugs, they either have or they're working on it as we speak.
--
dappled
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
howaminotmyself
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm going to be as delicate as I can about what I say next because it could get me in a lot of trouble. My first "proper" job was for a pharmaceuticals company. The second job, and the one I still have, still involves pharmacists but isn't directly in pharmaceutical manufacture.
Pharmaceutical companies, like any other, exist to make profit. The most profit that can be had is with a patient who requires expensive drugs and doesn't get better. Where a cheap drug will cure, research is supressed until as much money as possible has been wrung out of the expensive drugs which merely treat the symptoms. Patients die because of this.
It's for this very reason that I'm amazed pharmaceuticals companies aren't working on custom narcotics like those I originally described. It's a pharmaco CEO's wet dream. I can only assume there are regulations in place because it's seen as a rather seedy business to be manufacturing recreational drugs.
And this, for me, is the problem. I would relax those regulations immediately, before I would slacken drug laws. For reasons I can only guess at, the current status quo is obviously attractive enough to someone in power that they won't mess with it.
What gets me is the billions they spend to test synthetic drugs. A few natural substances have received the attention (st. Johns Wort, garlic, cranberry) but no one will put up the money to test the healing properties of things they can't get a patent for.
Did you hear about the "fake pot" that was recently banned by the DEA? Scientists are trying to synthetically mimic pot. And oops, turns out the chemicals can cause seizures. Ironically, real pot can help them. Sounds like a waste of money to me. And government regulation has it's pros and cons. The motives of such regulations can be fueled by greed. (i.e. drug companies that profit off of quick fix treatments- they don't actually want to cure people, just keep them alive)
I think a good course of action is to decriminalize drugs. Marijuana is mostly legal where I live and the cops can focus on more violent criminals(in theory). But at least my tax dollars aren't wasted on enforcing the punishment of a pot head when the focus should be on meth makers. And throwing an addict in jail does not solve the problem. They need psychological help.
--
dappled
12 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I did, yes. I almost mentioned it in the post (and methadone being a really poor substitute for opiates) but my posts are often overlong as it is, so I didn't bother.
I was imagining research on a much wider scale, though (a ten year or twenty year study with funding of billions of euros/pounds/dollars, and extensive clinical trials). If after all that, it's not possible, then so be it. But at least we tried to solve one of the world's many problems.
I wouldent think so. Granted, they will be much safer and more controlled, but the corporations that handle the drugs could actually make them more addictive. (They could make them less addictive, but they want to amke more money!!!! Why do you think tobacco companies make so much?