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.
Opponents of drug legalization, what are your reasons?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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.