Posted on 01/26/2003 6:20:50 AM PST by RJCogburn
Well, then you actually have the wrong argument, as far as I am concerned, since we *don't* actually have a 'drug prohibition' in effect.
We have *controls* in effect. Drugs are availble, when needed and when necessary. It will take a physicians signature to get the stronger 'drugs', but such simple drugs as aspirin and cold/flu aids like NyQuil *are* freely availble over the counter without any 'prohibition' in effect ...
Thanks for the pharmacology lesson, Bob.
Fact is, if you are pouring through your PDR, you will find dire warnings for just about all the drugs listed. Read the listing for Zyban, an FDA approved drug for smoking cessation....sounds pretty scary, doesn't it?
Additional fact is that Dilantin, is an effective and frequently used drug for some cardiac arrythmias. It is used in some chronic pain syndromes. There are a lot of 'off-label' uses for it.....as for many drugs.
The FDA does not approve the use of a drug without application for its use, along with lots of data....which means money. Since the patent for Dilantin is long expired, there is no economic benefit to applying for another use.
We can disagree about the War on Drugs but your comments concerning diphenylhydatoin are simply the product of, in the best case, bring uneducated about the facts.
Saying we don't have a drug prohibition in effect, because some drugs are legal or even OTC, is like saying the Nazis weren't racist, because there were some races (for example, Aryans) who were not sent to the gas chambers as a matter of national policy.
Obviously, some drugs are prohibited, and if any are, then there is a prohibition in effect, specifically pertaining to those drugs.
Duh.
Which ones - THC perhaps?
Nope. It's availble via prescription (Marinol) ...
Maybe it's more a problem that *your* drug of choice is regulated (which you automaticlly then translate into 'a prohibition against') ...
According to your own dishonest definition, there was no alcohol "prohibition" in America during the 1920s, because it was still permissible in communion wine.
Is that what you are arguing? (Depending on the meaning of 'is,' no doubt?)
As I said, your dissembling and disingenuousness continues to astound and amaze.
There was an article posted on FR about a year ago that showed that in Florida in 2000( I believe) more people died from prescription drugs than from illegal drugs.
Calling people 'druggies' is simply a convenient way to divert attention from the FAILED WoD to a personal attack on those that realize the extreme hypocracy in the WoD AND those who support it.
Or "Hyperventilating on Drugs"
I.e., taxpayer subsidized medical care--mentioned in passing almost as an afterthought.
Doper socialism. Pro-dopers are closet marxists.
How so?
So if I give a dangerous medication to kill a cancer, (which has a 100 percent mortality but a 30 percent mortality if treated with anti cancer medications) and the man dies of pneumonia, I've klled him?
So if I treat patient with overwhelming sepsis with an antibiotic and he dies of an allergic reaction because his body is weak, I've killed him?
So if I give a person a pain medication for a broken leg, and they take ten tablets and wash it down with beer and stop breathing, I've killed him?
If I give narcotics to a patient dying of metastatic cancer, and it requires 300 mgs an hour of morphine to keep him pain free, then I am to be condemned because he's "addicted"?
And if a person steals this gentleman's MSContin from his medicine cabinet and takes six tablets and dies of an overdose, I guess you'd say I killed her too.
Get real. Most "medication related deaths" are in sick people where the risk/benefit ratio is acceptable. You can die of Tylenol, which is one of the safest medicines we have. But most of these "medication" deaths are based on statistics from hostpitals where very very sick people are treated, (i.e. major medical centers) then the statistics are expanded as if the figures were true for community hospitals where mildly sick people are treated. It's a statistical exaggeration, and ignores the fact that many of these patients were critically ill or dying to begin with.
Druggies take drugs to feel good.
Medications are given by doctors so patients can cure their disease and get back to health, or at least to be able to live like a normal person.
Druggies don't want to be normal, they want to be high. That's why druggies kill their souls: They want to feel good, and their lives get twisted around to feel good, not to DO good, i.e. be responsible hard working human beings. They manipulate those around them to get drugs, they lack insight that they are hurting themselves and those around them, and they increase the types and dosages of whatever they take to get the desired high.
That's a tall order. Advocating illicit drugs and reality don't go together.
Kindly tell me, what's intrinsically wrong with being "high", euphoric or having an alterered state of consciousness? God says not to? Where does He say that?
If you can't answer that question, how in the world are you able to hold your position?
Marxist theory holds the state in utter contempt, labels it an oppressor of the people. In a perfect marxist society the state withers away to an anarchist nirvana.
Sound familiar? It should. It's the libertarian mindset, too. Marxists and libertarians, especially pro-dope libertarians, are siamese twin zealots. Like all zealots, they would destroy (liquidate is the more neutral term used) the "misfits" who stand in the way of their heaven on earth.
Pro-dopers are marxists. They are sympatico to a perfect degree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.