Derail from GRD : pros and cons on the legalization of drugs

[Narapoia]

My preference is for legalisation with a license system. Cars are bloody dangerous but we let people use them (As early as 15/16 in Nz and Aus) with licenses appropriate to the vehicles being driven. A license for each substance or class of substances would be required, which would include study of the effects and dangers of each substance as well as a written test.

This way people could access whatever they want, while being aware of the dangers. Ancillary benefits include being able to track drug use through presentation of licenses at dispensaries (To help prevent legal substances being provided on the black market) - revenue from license fees (hopefully enough to cover cost of administration and the licensing system) and a little more control over the particularly addictive drugs.

Set the age where people can start getting licences at 18/19/20 and significantly up the penalties for people caught supplying minors or supplying drugs to unlicensed individuals. Similarly people would be prosecuted when caught with drugs for which they have no license. This is a potentially unwieldy system though that could end up being quite costly and difficult to administer. Still I think it would be better than the current system and would remove the criminal element from supply and distribution of the products.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My preference is for legalisation with a license system. Cars are bloody dangerous but we let people use them (As early as 15/16 in Nz and Aus) with licenses appropriate to the vehicles being driven. A license for each substance or class of substances would be required, which would include study of the effects and dangers of each substance as well as a written test.

This way people could access whatever they want, while being aware of the dangers. Ancillary benefits include being able to track drug use through presentation of licenses at dispensaries (To help prevent legal substances being provided on the black market) - revenue from license fees (hopefully enough to cover cost of administration and the licensing system) and a little more control over the particularly addictive drugs.

Set the age where people can start getting licences at 18/19/20 and significantly up the penalties for people caught supplying minors or supplying drugs to unlicensed individuals. Similarly people would be prosecuted when caught with drugs for which they have no license. This is a potentially unwieldy system though that could end up being quite costly and difficult to administer. Still I think it would be better than the current system and would remove the criminal element from supply and distribution of the products.

But that wouldn't remove the criminal element from it. All it would mean would be that there would be a small subset of users who get their drugs via a prescription and everybody else who gets the drugs from the exact same criminals whom they're getting them from now. I can't see how this plan would even make a dent in the criminals' market share.

 

[Narapoia]

My preference is for legalisation with a license system. Cars are bloody dangerous but we let people use them (As early as 15/16 in Nz and Aus) with licenses appropriate to the vehicles being driven. A license for each substance or class of substances would be required, which would include study of the effects and dangers of each substance as well as a written test.

This way people could access whatever they want, while being aware of the dangers. Ancillary benefits include being able to track drug use through presentation of licenses at dispensaries (To help prevent legal substances being provided on the black market) - revenue from license fees (hopefully enough to cover cost of administration and the licensing system) and a little more control over the particularly addictive drugs.

Set the age where people can start getting licences at 18/19/20 and significantly up the penalties for people caught supplying minors or supplying drugs to unlicensed individuals. Similarly people would be prosecuted when caught with drugs for which they have no license. This is a potentially unwieldy system though that could end up being quite costly and difficult to administer. Still I think it would be better than the current system and would remove the criminal element from supply and distribution of the products.

But that wouldn't remove the criminal element from it. All it would mean would be that there would be a small subset of users who get their drugs via a prescription and everybody else who gets the drugs from the exact same criminals whom they're getting them from now. I can't see how this plan would even make a dent in the criminals' market share.

Option A: Spend more money for adulterated low quality street drugs from criminals with the possibility of prosecution.

Option B: Get a license and have access to guaranteed purity and quality product from a regulated, clean and non-criminal dispensary that can charge significantly less due to economies of scale and legal manufacturing. Also no threat of prosecution.

Why do you think there would only be a small subset of people who would go for Option B?

 

[Jayjay]

Option A: Spend more money for adulterated low quality street drugs from criminals with the possibility of prosecution.

Option B: Get a license and have access to guaranteed purity and quality product from a regulated, clean and non-criminal dispensary that can charge significantly less due to economies of scale and legal manufacturing. Also no threat of prosecution.

Why do you think there would only be a small subset of people who would go for Option B?

I don't believe that the legal dispensaries could charge significantly less. They save some money from running a legal business, but would they have any higher economies of scale than, say, Mexican drug cartels? I don't think so.Also there are administrative cots and taxes to consider.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

My preference is for legalisation with a license system. Cars are bloody dangerous but we let people use them (As early as 15/16 in Nz and Aus) with licenses appropriate to the vehicles being driven. A license for each substance or class of substances would be required, which would include study of the effects and dangers of each substance as well as a written test.

This way people could access whatever they want, while being aware of the dangers. Ancillary benefits include being able to track drug use through presentation of licenses at dispensaries (To help prevent legal substances being provided on the black market) - revenue from license fees (hopefully enough to cover cost of administration and the licensing system) and a little more control over the particularly addictive drugs.

Set the age where people can start getting licences at 18/19/20 and significantly up the penalties for people caught supplying minors or supplying drugs to unlicensed individuals. Similarly people would be prosecuted when caught with drugs for which they have no license. This is a potentially unwieldy system though that could end up being quite costly and difficult to administer. Still I think it would be better than the current system and would remove the criminal element from supply and distribution of the products.

You and Lorne are on the right path.

Remove the harms that prohibition bring and place reasoned controls on distribution.

Kudos to both of you.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Option A: Spend more money for adulterated low quality street drugs from criminals with the possibility of prosecution.

Option B: Get a license and have access to guaranteed purity and quality product from a regulated, clean and non-criminal dispensary that can charge significantly less due to economies of scale and legal manufacturing. Also no threat of prosecution.

Why do you think there would only be a small subset of people who would go for Option B?

I don't believe that the legal dispensaries could charge significantly less. They save some money from running a legal business, but would they have any higher economies of scale than, say, Mexican drug cartels? I don't think so.Also there are administrative cots and taxes to consider.

Compare those to the loses drug cartels have now and they will profit from going legit.

The trick of legalization is to slowly absorb all black marketers or make it really hard on them penalty wise when caught. As most of their clients would be children, the public has a responsibility and right then to be as hard on possible. Something we do not do today because of the idiocy of prohibition laws.

Regards
DL

 

[Narapoia]

Option A: Spend more money for adulterated low quality street drugs from criminals with the possibility of prosecution.

Option B: Get a license and have access to guaranteed purity and quality product from a regulated, clean and non-criminal dispensary that can charge significantly less due to economies of scale and legal manufacturing. Also no threat of prosecution.

Why do you think there would only be a small subset of people who would go for Option B?

I don't believe that the legal dispensaries could charge significantly less. They save some money from running a legal business, but would they have any higher economies of scale than, say, Mexican drug cartels? I don't think so.Also there are administrative cots and taxes to consider.

Yes there would be extra administrative expenses for sure and tax revenue is an incentive for legalisation. However - a single large manufacturing and packaging plant on the scale used to produce generic paracetamol could probably supply the entire of Europe's MDMA/Ecstasy demand in a year. You can buy 24 paracetamol (Guaranteed purity, quality and dosage) for about $4 in Australia. When I was in London you could get 5-10 pills or 20 pounds but they were shit and did nothing. As a consumer which option are you going to choose?

Lets look at cocaine, though the argument is the same for other compounds like methamphetamine, LSD etc. The Mexican cartels would be operating with a reasonable economy of scale I admit. However lets compare it to pharmaceutical grade chemicals out there:

Vancomycin is a complex organic molecule, a potent anti-bacterial and looks like this:


You can buy it for $1-10 bucks a Kilogram on Alibaba. The current process for manufacturing cocaine uses coca leaves as a raw material. This is not necessarily the case (I have found a couple complete synthesis pathways in 1-3 minutes searching) and with the incentive of an open but regulated market there is not reason to think that industrial chemists would not be able to produce it for a similar cost as the more complex Vancomycin. While I am not across the manufacturing costs base of drug cartels in South and Central America I somehow doubt they will be able to compete with the established fine and industrial chemical industry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trick of legalization is to slowly absorb all black marketers or make it really hard on them penalty wise when caught. As most of their clients would be children, the public has a responsibility and right then to be as hard on possible. Something we do not do today because of the idiocy of prohibition laws.

Regards
DL

Why bother? Legalization without unreasonable taxes will mean the black marketeers can't make enough at it. They'll quit of their own accord. Some will no doubt turn legit, others will leave the business entirely (the legit business won't need as many people.) I want the harm stopped, I don't particularly care if they're caught for what they did before as they clearly can't reoffend.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The trick of legalization is to slowly absorb all black marketers or make it really hard on them penalty wise when caught. As most of their clients would be children, the public has a responsibility and right then to be as hard on possible. Something we do not do today because of the idiocy of prohibition laws.

Regards
DL

Why bother? Legalization without unreasonable taxes will mean the black marketeers can't make enough at it. They'll quit of their own accord. Some will no doubt turn legit, others will leave the business entirely (the legit business won't need as many people.) I want the harm stopped, I don't particularly care if they're caught for what they did before as they clearly can't reoffend.

I am with you on not penalizing what the black market did before legalization or decriminalization. It is if they persist after the fact in pushing to children that I was speaking to.

Most will disappear as you say, but the designer drug pushers will remain if we let them continue to exist by not placing all the other drugs under medical or prescription restrictions.

That was the finding of the Canadian Royal Commission on Psychotropic drugs.

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

Regards
DL

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Gnostic Christian Bishop :Most will disappear as you say, but the designer drug pushers will remain if we let them continue to exist by not placing all the other drugs under medical or prescription restrictions.

You then place the expectation on health care providers/professionals to hand out prescriptions WITHOUT a medical justification. If the reliance on therapeutic cannabis is 100% justified under medical scripts for a variety of health related conditions, I doubt that the same would apply for "all the other drugs" known as recreational.

The moment we talk about involving the health care industry in drugs prescriptions of any sort, it can only be justified by demonstrating a therapeutic value supported via clinical data.

Further, you have to consider health insurance coverage addressing Rx plans. Of course it is to the advantage of the insurance industry to cover under their Rx plan prescribed therapeutic cannabis considering its low cost compared to pharma manufactured drugs. Take the high cost of pharma origin anti emetics prescribed to manage CINV (chemo induced nausea and vomiting) as one example. With the added benefit of therapeutic cannabis being an appetite stimulant (preventing "wasting"). And its anti anxiety properties which certainly applies to patients diagnosed with catastrophic illnesses. And its anti spasmodic properties which would benefit spinal cord injuries patients and those affected with chronic muscular degenerative ailments. And its therapeutic properties for glaucoma. And those patients affected by neuropathy. Adding the recent passage in Florida of the Charlotte's Web legislation allowing for the prescription of a cannabis derived solution mixed with olive oil and absorbed orally, to manage epilepsy.(project launched by the parents of Charlotte Figi, who was diagnosed when a toddler with Dravet syndrome). Charlotte is now 8 years old.

I am part of the 80% of Florida residents who are optimistic that medical cannabis will be legalized comes November since it is now officially on the ballot. Also a savvy political move on the part of gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist and the pursued advocacy to get it on the ballot by the Democrat Party loyals Morgan and Morgan (law firm) as it will draw young voters out to vote. Consistently, States who have legalized the recreational use of cannabis had to first take the step of legalizing medical cannabis. And mind you, it is not just young voters, but also older Fl. residents affected by a degenerative condition such as Parkinson's (considering clinical data showing the effectiveness of cannabis on tremors and what we refer to as "parkinsonism episodes"). And of course any Fl. resident affected by a condition the symptoms of which can be managed by reliance on the therapeutic properties of cannabis.

Florida has had a long history (especially Tampa Bay) to fester "pill mills" otherwise known as some pain management clinics flagged by the DEA as prescribing and also dispensing too liberally opiate derived pharma drugs. Resulting in attracting a "pill mill" tourism of folks coming out of state who do not have a medically documented history of chronic pain but are drug addicts and/or traffickers. The response from legislators was to place extremely restrictive conditions regarding how many pain pills a patient may have in his/her possession. Adding to that restricting how much quantity can be prescribed at once by licensed physicians. Add to that mandated sentencing in Fl. which results in putting behind bars folks possessing a quantity above the allowed limit(or multiple prescriptions obtained illegally) by hitting them with a mandated sentence corresponding to trafficking. I have encountered several pain management patients who ration themselves which results in poor pain management/control and that because they have to wait to legally get a refill from their prescribing physician.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Speaking of "children" consuming controlled substances : many juveniles need not to be "pushed by black marketers" to have access to opiate derived medically prescribed drugs as they will simply steal them from any adult in their household in possession of legally and medically prescribed such drugs. Either to support their own addiction or sell them to their juvenile peers.

Whichever drug which also carries a recreational effect when prescribed SHOULD be secured and out of view in our homes. The repeated advice given to my geriatric patients under home health care is to pre pour their meds into days of the week and time labeled containers. They can easily keep track of any suspicious missing of pills in the said containers.

Legalizing all drugs under "medical prescriptions or restrictions" is not going to keep juveniles from accessing them outside of black marketers selling them on "the streets".

Further and addressing this :

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

I disagree. There is a vast difference between a psychotropic drug with benign clinical side effects and one inducing clinical side effects susceptible to compromise the health of the user and result in a 911 call. The main reason why cannabis is a SAFE drug to legalize is because there is no possible overdosing. The most side effect one may experience would be an episode of hypo tension (sudden BP drop) which can be resolved without a 911 intervention. No respiratory depression. No emergent dehydration and elevated temperature with the potential to cause a "frying" of the brain and brain damage. No hallucinogenic effects susceptible to induce what would be the equivalent of the symptoms of a psychotic episode.

If you talk with ER medical personnel, they will tell you that patients admitted in ER due to drug use are NOT pot users but other recreational drugs. And for some of them, from ER admittance they will become ICU patients.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am with you on not penalizing what the black market did before legalization or decriminalization. It is if they persist after the fact in pushing to children that I was speaking to.

I don't think they will--there won't be enough money in it. And note that I didn't specify over 18 for an addiction prescription.

Most will disappear as you say, but the designer drug pushers will remain if we let them continue to exist by not placing all the other drugs under medical or prescription restrictions.

That was the finding of the Canadian Royal Commission on Psychotropic drugs.

Yeah, anything that influences mental state should by default go under such rules.

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

I think taking pot first will help--when it's legalized and the sky doesn't fall in people will begin to see we have a point.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

By Gnostic Christian Bishop :Most will disappear as you say, but the designer drug pushers will remain if we let them continue to exist by not placing all the other drugs under medical or prescription restrictions.

You then place the expectation on health care providers/professionals to hand out prescriptions WITHOUT a medical justification. If the reliance on therapeutic cannabis is 100% justified under medical scripts for a variety of health related conditions, I doubt that the same would apply for "all the other drugs" known as recreational.

The moment we talk about involving the health care industry in drugs prescriptions of any sort, it can only be justified by demonstrating a therapeutic value supported via clinical data.

Further, you have to consider health insurance coverage addressing Rx plans. Of course it is to the advantage of the insurance industry to cover under their Rx plan prescribed therapeutic cannabis considering its low cost compared to pharma manufactured drugs. Take the high cost of pharma origin anti emetics prescribed to manage CINV (chemo induced nausea and vomiting) as one example. With the added benefit of therapeutic cannabis being an appetite stimulant (preventing "wasting"). And its anti anxiety properties which certainly applies to patients diagnosed with catastrophic illnesses. And its anti spasmodic properties which would benefit spinal cord injuries patients and those affected with chronic muscular degenerative ailments. And its therapeutic properties for glaucoma. And those patients affected by neuropathy. Adding the recent passage in Florida of the Charlotte's Web legislation allowing for the prescription of a cannabis derived solution mixed with olive oil and absorbed orally, to manage epilepsy.(project launched by the parents of Charlotte Figi, who was diagnosed when a toddler with Dravet syndrome). Charlotte is now 8 years old.

I am part of the 80% of Florida residents who are optimistic that medical cannabis will be legalized comes November since it is now officially on the ballot. Also a savvy political move on the part of gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist and the pursued advocacy to get it on the ballot by the Democrat Party loyals Morgan and Morgan (law firm) as it will draw young voters out to vote. Consistently, States who have legalized the recreational use of cannabis had to first take the step of legalizing medical cannabis. And mind you, it is not just young voters, but also older Fl. residents affected by a degenerative condition such as Parkinson's (considering clinical data showing the effectiveness of cannabis on tremors and what we refer to as "parkinsonism episodes"). And of course any Fl. resident affected by a condition the symptoms of which can be managed by reliance on the therapeutic properties of cannabis.

Florida has had a long history (especially Tampa Bay) to fester "pill mills" otherwise known as some pain management clinics flagged by the DEA as prescribing and also dispensing too liberally opiate derived pharma drugs. Resulting in attracting a "pill mill" tourism of folks coming out of state who do not have a medically documented history of chronic pain but are drug addicts and/or traffickers. The response from legislators was to place extremely restrictive conditions regarding how many pain pills a patient may have in his/her possession. Adding to that restricting how much quantity can be prescribed at once by licensed physicians. Add to that mandated sentencing in Fl. which results in putting behind bars folks possessing a quantity above the allowed limit(or multiple prescriptions obtained illegally) by hitting them with a mandated sentence corresponding to trafficking. I have encountered several pain management patients who ration themselves which results in poor pain management/control and that because they have to wait to legally get a refill from their prescribing physician.

Well thought out and put.

"I doubt that the same would apply for "all the other drugs" known as recreational.".

That is a hurdle that legislators will have to work around if they want to do their jobs of protecting children.
If parents do not push them then we will not reap near as much of the benefits.

I would imagine that doctors will have to answer to the insurance people for who they have on medical scripts and who they have on recreational use scripts. I see no problem with this.

"The moment we talk about involving the health care industry in drugs prescriptions of any sort, it can only be justified by demonstrating a therapeutic value supported via clinical data.".

With respect for your U.S. systems, your statement has nothing to do with the reality of your experience and modus operandi pf your industry except superficially.

Your system is so corrupt it shames the free world.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Speaking of "children" consuming controlled substances : many juveniles need not to be "pushed by black marketers" to have access to opiate derived medically prescribed drugs as they will simply steal them from any adult in their household in possession of legally and medically prescribed such drugs. Either to support their own addiction or sell them to their juvenile peers.

Whichever drug which also carries a recreational effect when prescribed SHOULD be secured and out of view in our homes. The repeated advice given to my geriatric patients under home health care is to pre pour their meds into days of the week and time labeled containers. They can easily keep track of any suspicious missing of pills in the said containers.

Legalizing all drugs under "medical prescriptions or restrictions" is not going to keep juveniles from accessing them outside of black marketers selling them on "the streets".

Further and addressing this :

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

I disagree. There is a vast difference between a psychotropic drug with benign clinical side effects and one inducing clinical side effects susceptible to compromise the health of the user and result in a 911 call. The main reason why cannabis is a SAFE drug to legalize is because there is no possible overdosing. The most side effect one may experience would be an episode of hypo tension (sudden BP drop) which can be resolved without a 911 intervention. No respiratory depression. No emergent dehydration and elevated temperature with the potential to cause a "frying" of the brain and brain damage. No hallucinogenic effects susceptible to induce what would be the equivalent of the symptoms of a psychotic episode.

If you talk with ER medical personnel, they will tell you that patients admitted in ER due to drug use are NOT pot users but other recreational drugs. And for some of them, from ER admittance they will become ICU patients.

Sure some parents are poor guardians of their children. Legislation will not make idiots brighter. What the medical system can do though and does do is monitor consumption. If parents are put on the blocks for losing drugs to their children, hopefully they are not so stupid that they cannot learn with help from medical professionals.

If you are looking for a perfect system, I do not know where you will find it but a system where all drugs get put into the same monitored system is the only way to get ahead of the pushers who can change the composition of drugs to new ones faster than approvals can be done by governments at present.

All drugs, psychotropic or not should be under medical control.

Anything less is not too intelligent.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I don't think they will--there won't be enough money in it. And note that I didn't specify over 18 for an addiction prescription.

Most will disappear as you say, but the designer drug pushers will remain if we let them continue to exist by not placing all the other drugs under medical or prescription restrictions.

That was the finding of the Canadian Royal Commission on Psychotropic drugs.

Yeah, anything that influences mental state should by default go under such rules.

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

I think taking pot first will help--when it's legalized and the sky doesn't fall in people will begin to see we have a point.

Let us pray my friend. Way too many of our young burn out way too early in life.

Regards
DL

 

[Sabine Grant]

Speaking of "children" consuming controlled substances : many juveniles need not to be "pushed by black marketers" to have access to opiate derived medically prescribed drugs as they will simply steal them from any adult in their household in possession of legally and medically prescribed such drugs. Either to support their own addiction or sell them to their juvenile peers.

Whichever drug which also carries a recreational effect when prescribed SHOULD be secured and out of view in our homes. The repeated advice given to my geriatric patients under home health care is to pre pour their meds into days of the week and time labeled containers. They can easily keep track of any suspicious missing of pills in the said containers.

Legalizing all drugs under "medical prescriptions or restrictions" is not going to keep juveniles from accessing them outside of black marketers selling them on "the streets".

Further and addressing this :

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

I disagree. There is a vast difference between a psychotropic drug with benign clinical side effects and one inducing clinical side effects susceptible to compromise the health of the user and result in a 911 call. The main reason why cannabis is a SAFE drug to legalize is because there is no possible overdosing. The most side effect one may experience would be an episode of hypo tension (sudden BP drop) which can be resolved without a 911 intervention. No respiratory depression. No emergent dehydration and elevated temperature with the potential to cause a "frying" of the brain and brain damage. No hallucinogenic effects susceptible to induce what would be the equivalent of the symptoms of a psychotic episode.

If you talk with ER medical personnel, they will tell you that patients admitted in ER due to drug use are NOT pot users but other recreational drugs. And for some of them, from ER admittance they will become ICU patients.

Sure some parents are poor guardians of their children. Legislation will not make idiots brighter. What the medical system can do though and does do is monitor consumption. If parents are put on the blocks for losing drugs to their children, hopefully they are not so stupid that they cannot learn with help from medical professionals.

Sure. However, you tend to dismiss the reality that prescriptions all of non OTC drugs delivered by licensed physicians MUST meet a medical justification. You are envisioning here a system involving directly health care professionals in delivering prescriptions on all recreational drugs without any medical justification. If cannabis has been clinically proven to have therapeutic properties (and I cited several of them), that is NOT the case for the vast majority of other controlled substances known as recreational use drugs.

If you are looking for a perfect system, I do not know where you will find it but a system where all drugs get put into the same monitored system is the only way to get ahead of the pushers who can change the composition of drugs to new ones faster than approvals can be done by governments at present.

I will stand firm by my counter argumentation to you envisioning health care professionals writing scripts on all recreational drugs without a medical justification. Are you not aware of the existence of biomedical ethics and how they govern the practice of medicine? I am not sure how and why anyone would place the expectation on licensed physicians as a whole to dismiss The Principle of Nonmaleficence as they would be tasked to deliver prescriptions on a variety of recreational drugs known to have no therapeutic properties and on the top of it all listing severe counter indications to medically prescribed pharma drugs as well as a variety of OTC drugs.

All drugs, psychotropic or not should be under medical control.

Anything less is not too intelligent.

Regards
DL

You keep dismissing the reality that all FDA approved drugs obtained via a medical prescription are justified due to their therapeutic properties. They were tested via clinical trials and evaluated for how successful/efficient their therapeutic qualities are as well as tested for their side effects. Care to detail for me the clinically tested and demonstrated efficient therapeutic properties addressing health conditions, of recreational drugs other than cannabis? Opiates have been approved for the sole reason that there is ample clinical data supporting their ultimate therapeutic property for pain management. Same with morphine prescribed under the medical justification of pain management and specifically addressing a variety of medical DIAGNOSIS with symptoms related to the medical need to manage the patient's pain.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I don't think they will--there won't be enough money in it. And note that I didn't specify over 18 for an addiction prescription.

Most will disappear as you say, but the designer drug pushers will remain if we let them continue to exist by not placing all the other drugs under medical or prescription restrictions.

That was the finding of the Canadian Royal Commission on Psychotropic drugs.

Yeah, anything that influences mental state should by default go under such rules.

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

I think taking pot first will help--when it's legalized and the sky doesn't fall in people will begin to see we have a point.

Let us pray my friend. Way too many of our young burn out way too early in life.

Regards
DL

Let me suggest you avoid expecting Skeptic members on this board to "pray" at any time as a mean to resolve a variety of issues. "Let us pray" belongs in a gathering of believers, not when addressing the communicated thoughts of non believers.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Gnostic Christian Bishop :Most will disappear as you say, but the designer drug pushers will remain if we let them continue to exist by not placing all the other drugs under medical or prescription restrictions.

You then place the expectation on health care providers/professionals to hand out prescriptions WITHOUT a medical justification. If the reliance on therapeutic cannabis is 100% justified under medical scripts for a variety of health related conditions, I doubt that the same would apply for "all the other drugs" known as recreational.

The moment we talk about involving the health care industry in drugs prescriptions of any sort, it can only be justified by demonstrating a therapeutic value supported via clinical data.

Further, you have to consider health insurance coverage addressing Rx plans. Of course it is to the advantage of the insurance industry to cover under their Rx plan prescribed therapeutic cannabis considering its low cost compared to pharma manufactured drugs. Take the high cost of pharma origin anti emetics prescribed to manage CINV (chemo induced nausea and vomiting) as one example. With the added benefit of therapeutic cannabis being an appetite stimulant (preventing "wasting"). And its anti anxiety properties which certainly applies to patients diagnosed with catastrophic illnesses. And its anti spasmodic properties which would benefit spinal cord injuries patients and those affected with chronic muscular degenerative ailments. And its therapeutic properties for glaucoma. And those patients affected by neuropathy. Adding the recent passage in Florida of the Charlotte's Web legislation allowing for the prescription of a cannabis derived solution mixed with olive oil and absorbed orally, to manage epilepsy.(project launched by the parents of Charlotte Figi, who was diagnosed when a toddler with Dravet syndrome). Charlotte is now 8 years old.

I am part of the 80% of Florida residents who are optimistic that medical cannabis will be legalized comes November since it is now officially on the ballot. Also a savvy political move on the part of gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist and the pursued advocacy to get it on the ballot by the Democrat Party loyals Morgan and Morgan (law firm) as it will draw young voters out to vote. Consistently, States who have legalized the recreational use of cannabis had to first take the step of legalizing medical cannabis. And mind you, it is not just young voters, but also older Fl. residents affected by a degenerative condition such as Parkinson's (considering clinical data showing the effectiveness of cannabis on tremors and what we refer to as "parkinsonism episodes"). And of course any Fl. resident affected by a condition the symptoms of which can be managed by reliance on the therapeutic properties of cannabis.

Florida has had a long history (especially Tampa Bay) to fester "pill mills" otherwise known as some pain management clinics flagged by the DEA as prescribing and also dispensing too liberally opiate derived pharma drugs. Resulting in attracting a "pill mill" tourism of folks coming out of state who do not have a medically documented history of chronic pain but are drug addicts and/or traffickers. The response from legislators was to place extremely restrictive conditions regarding how many pain pills a patient may have in his/her possession. Adding to that restricting how much quantity can be prescribed at once by licensed physicians. Add to that mandated sentencing in Fl. which results in putting behind bars folks possessing a quantity above the allowed limit(or multiple prescriptions obtained illegally) by hitting them with a mandated sentence corresponding to trafficking. I have encountered several pain management patients who ration themselves which results in poor pain management/control and that because they have to wait to legally get a refill from their prescribing physician.

Well thought out and put.

"I doubt that the same would apply for "all the other drugs" known as recreational.".

That is a hurdle that legislators will have to work around if they want to do their jobs of protecting children.
If parents do not push them then we will not reap near as much of the benefits.

Legislators should NOT be compelling the medical milieu to deliver scripts of products which have no clinical data supporting their therapeutic properties. Legislators cannot monitor 24/7 300 millions (not even 60 millions my country of origin and citizenship , France) to insure that scripted drugs are secured adequately in any home where such drugs are kept for an adult patient's use.

I would imagine that doctors will have to answer to the insurance people for who they have on medical scripts and who they have on recreational use scripts. I see no problem with this.

I already figured out that you are totally dismissive of the existing reality that the expected role of health care professionals is to deliver scripts that are MEDICALLY justified and more importantly why. I have been very specific and accurate in my choice of words when describing the why of such expectation. But you keep dismissing it.

"The moment we talk about involving the health care industry in drugs prescriptions of any sort, it can only be justified by demonstrating a therapeutic value supported via clinical data.".

With respect for your U.S. systems, your statement has nothing to do with the reality of your experience and modus operandi pf your industry except superficially.

This is not "my experience". Anyone familiar with the conditions to obtain a license to practice medicine should know that under such license, any treatment/procedure/ testing and scripts are to be medically justified via a medical diagnosis and in many cases subsequent prognosis.

I work in the US health care system. I am not aware of licensed physicians liberally delivering prescriptions without a medically supported diagnosis addressing the patient's health status. The only category of such physicians with a trend to be liberal are those who get caught for scripting pain meds to patients who have no medical status indicating a need for pain management.

Your system is so corrupt it shames the free world.

Regards
DL

It is not my system. My health care system is the model in my OWN country of origin and citizenship, France. Single payer. Not hyper privatized like the US. Not a profit centered industry but a vital service to the people and funded by the people. Clear enough?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think they will--there won't be enough money in it. And note that I didn't specify over 18 for an addiction prescription.

Most will disappear as you say, but the designer drug pushers will remain if we let them continue to exist by not placing all the other drugs under medical or prescription restrictions.

That was the finding of the Canadian Royal Commission on Psychotropic drugs.

Yeah, anything that influences mental state should by default go under such rules.

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

I think taking pot first will help--when it's legalized and the sky doesn't fall in people will begin to see we have a point.

Let us pray my friend. Way too many of our young burn out way too early in life.

Regards
DL

About as close to praying as I come is the cleric I play in Dungeons and Dragons Online.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Speaking of "children" consuming controlled substances : many juveniles need not to be "pushed by black marketers" to have access to opiate derived medically prescribed drugs as they will simply steal them from any adult in their household in possession of legally and medically prescribed such drugs. Either to support their own addiction or sell them to their juvenile peers.

Whichever drug which also carries a recreational effect when prescribed SHOULD be secured and out of view in our homes. The repeated advice given to my geriatric patients under home health care is to pre pour their meds into days of the week and time labeled containers. They can easily keep track of any suspicious missing of pills in the said containers.

Legalizing all drugs under "medical prescriptions or restrictions" is not going to keep juveniles from accessing them outside of black marketers selling them on "the streets".

Further and addressing this :

If we are to legalize, then we should include all the psychotropic drugs and not have to do one drug at a time.

I disagree. There is a vast difference between a psychotropic drug with benign clinical side effects and one inducing clinical side effects susceptible to compromise the health of the user and result in a 911 call. The main reason why cannabis is a SAFE drug to legalize is because there is no possible overdosing. The most side effect one may experience would be an episode of hypo tension (sudden BP drop) which can be resolved without a 911 intervention. No respiratory depression. No emergent dehydration and elevated temperature with the potential to cause a "frying" of the brain and brain damage. No hallucinogenic effects susceptible to induce what would be the equivalent of the symptoms of a psychotic episode.

If you talk with ER medical personnel, they will tell you that patients admitted in ER due to drug use are NOT pot users but other recreational drugs. And for some of them, from ER admittance they will become ICU patients.

Sure some parents are poor guardians of their children. Legislation will not make idiots brighter. What the medical system can do though and does do is monitor consumption. If parents are put on the blocks for losing drugs to their children, hopefully they are not so stupid that they cannot learn with help from medical professionals.

Sure. However, you tend to dismiss the reality that prescriptions all of non OTC drugs delivered by licensed physicians MUST meet a medical justification. You are envisioning here a system involving directly health care professionals in delivering prescriptions on all recreational drugs without any medical justification. If cannabis has been clinically proven to have therapeutic properties (and I cited several of them), that is NOT the case for the vast majority of other controlled substances known as recreational use drugs.

If you are looking for a perfect system, I do not know where you will find it but a system where all drugs get put into the same monitored system is the only way to get ahead of the pushers who can change the composition of drugs to new ones faster than approvals can be done by governments at present.

I will stand firm by my counter argumentation to you envisioning health care professionals writing scripts on all recreational drugs without a medical justification. Are you not aware of the existence of biomedical ethics and how they govern the practice of medicine? I am not sure how and why anyone would place the expectation on licensed physicians as a whole to dismiss The Principle of Nonmaleficence as they would be tasked to deliver prescriptions on a variety of recreational drugs known to have no therapeutic properties and on the top of it all listing severe counter indications to medically prescribed pharma drugs as well as a variety of OTC drugs.

All drugs, psychotropic or not should be under medical control.

Anything less is not too intelligent.

Regards
DL

You keep dismissing the reality that all FDA approved drugs obtained via a medical prescription are justified due to their therapeutic properties. They were tested via clinical trials and evaluated for how successful/efficient their therapeutic qualities are as well as tested for their side effects. Care to detail for me the clinically tested and demonstrated efficient therapeutic properties addressing health conditions, of recreational drugs other than cannabis? Opiates have been approved for the sole reason that there is ample clinical data supporting their ultimate therapeutic property for pain management. Same with morphine prescribed under the medical justification of pain management and specifically addressing a variety of medical DIAGNOSIS with symptoms related to the medical need to manage the patient's pain.

Your joking right?

You would like a list of all the testing done on psychotropic drugs eh. try google. Or read the LeDain Royal Commission Report on Psychotropic Drugs.

That aside. The real research not corrupted by your government agencies will happen after all drugs come under prescription restriction. People who fear the law make damned poor research subjects.

As to doctors writing scripts for recreational drugs. Do you believe that doctors care so little of what their patients consume in terms of drugs that they would prefer not to know and monitor for those drugs?

Regards
DL