Originally Posted by BR
We'll agree on the drugs. We'll disagree on the white collar crimes. Fraud, especially the kind that led to the economic collapse, should be severely punished. The perpetrators of that collapse should be locked up for quite a while.
I don't know...I think that we can do better than to just throw these people behind bars. I'd rather see them forced to help undue the damage they've caused, participate in public service, etc than sacrifice their freedom in most cases. And who are the "perpetrators" of the economic collapse, exactly?
Originally Posted by marvfox
Why would you want to control LSD.This is a really psychotic drug.My friend died from this drug years ago in college.No drugs are good for you even pot.
I'm sorry about your friend. I also see why tonton assumed you meant it was from poisoning. Drugs are not "bad" for you in many cases. It depends on dosage, frequency of use, and of course--the type of drug. Marijuana (as others note) can actually be beneficial, as can many others. Regardless, I still don't think the government should be telling us what we can put in our bodies.
Originally Posted by tonton
First of all, despite what the FDA says about marijuana there are many instances where it can be extremely good for you, such as in controlling the pain and loss of appetite from chemotherapy or AIDS treatment. Get your facts straight.
Second, it's not about what's good for you. Chocolate isn't good for you.
It can be quite good for you, actually.
And third, I don't believe you. Toxicity deaths from LSD are extremely rare/almost unheard of. Even if you believe the questionable stories or possible misdiagnoses, LSD overdose resulting in death is Probably about 1/10000th as common per dose as toxicity deaths from alcohol. LSD use resulting in self-harm or harm of others is also negligible compared to the effects of alcohol. And any bad experience can make you nuts. Perhaps we should outlaw love if that's a criterion.[/QUOTE]
We now know he didn't mean that, but your point remains.
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
The Taliban reduced the production of opium by 95% and since the US invaded it has skyrocketed. The US plays an important role in the growth of opium and it's distribution. 10,000 deaths in the EU each year doesn't deter them when there's so much money at stake. The yearly street value is somewhere around $500 billion from Afghanistan.
Can the US stop it?
It could buy the yearly crop of opium for the same amount it spends each month fighting the war-
"Rather than fighting the cultivation through military efforts, Kinzer said, the US government should purchase the annual poppy crop from Afghan farmers for an estimated $3-4 billion a year the same amount spent on the war in Afghanistan every month."
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
Obviously I don't always have readily available links but the 95% reduction under the Taliban comes from the BBC-
"Despite its own figures showing the Taleban had cut Afghanistan's heroin production by about 95%, the report claimed that heroin had "financed the former Taleban regime".
The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) report, released on 26 February, said that Afghanistan produced 3,400 tonnes last year, up from 185 tonnes in 2001."
This is interesting too-
"Do you think that Russia, with its hard-won experience, could lead the global fight against Afghanistan's drug-traffic?
Today Afghanistan produces nearly the world's entire volume of opiates. This is a phenomenon. We invited participants to a Moscow forum to say that the world needs to take responsibility for the fate of Afghanistan; the decision was made to apply military force, so Afghanistan would become a free, democratic, developing state; but since that decision was made, the amount of heroine produced in Afghanistan has grown by 40 times."
And I don't make stuff up, thats for e# and SDW to do in the GW thread.
Thanks for hit and run. As for Afghanistan, I understand...but what is your point? Did we deliberately allow more production, or just ignore it, or did it happen for some other reason.
Originally Posted by sammi jo
The size and scope of annual trade in narcotics ranks alongside oil and arms.
We have been led to believe that drug dealers keep their profits "under their mattresses". There is no $interest on a mattress investment, only depreciation due to inflation, and a security nightmare to boot. Of course the major dealers and suppliers use the banking system, or other "respectable" (!) institutions... they are all members of the same corrupt system.
Why do you think the US was planning on invading Afghanistan as early as 1999, and specific plans for Afghanistan and Iraq were on the George W. Bush Oval Office desk as early as January 2001? Then there was the issue of the Taliban playing hardball re. the Unocal pipeline.... the war against Afghanistan was a virtual certainty, that is, if Congress and the US public could have been persuaded to support such.
....and we're back. Next up on Conspiracy Hour Today with Sammi Jo Conspiracy: The Secret US Plan to Invade Afghanistan...did it involve deliberately increasing drug supply? Film at 11!
Originally Posted by tonton
I'm sorry to hear about your friend, and I apologize for assuming you meant it was a death due to toxicity. But.. As far as falling from a height is concerned... I know someone who died the same way as a result of alcohol. I'm not kidding. So the question remains... Is LSD more dangerous than alcohol?
I think it arguably might be. Consider for a moment that people consumed it like they do alcohol. How would it impact their daily activities? What if the two martini lunch became the two hit lunch? I think that would be much more dangerous. That's not an argument for making it illegal, but that's what I think.
Originally Posted by sammi jo
There's another aspect of drug pushing that seldom gets mentioned. Turn on your TV and you will see all manner of dangerous substances, requiring a doctor's prescription, being advertised to the general *public*, the huge majority of whom no nothing little about the (side) effects of these chemicals, and implicitly trust in the medical profession to "make them better when they get sick". The same hard sell advertising campaigns are directed at doctors and other health professionals, with generous paybacks and other perks
in order "shift the most units", regardless of the necessity of the prescription.
We agree there. I have my problems with the FDA allowing TV advertising for drugs since it started in what...1997?
As a result of America's craze for arbitrarily popping pills on (often misplaced) trust, approximately 100,000 people die and 2 million are injured by poisoning/bad reactions to prescription drugs each year. Nobody goes to jail as a result. Punishment (re drugs) is dependent on status... Vioxx for example... the maker (Merck) fabricated efficacy studies, earned $2.5 billion from pushing this stuff... . (from wikipedia: FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market. If this analysis of U.S. data is accurate, the worldwide death toll due to Vioxx would be in the hundreds of thousands).
In contrast, grow a few marijuana plants......
Now you're just making it shit up. As for Vioxx, it's not that simple. First, they didn't "make" $2.5 billion. That was their total sales. And there is no evidence that Vioxx "caused" even close to that number of heart attacks. From wiki:
The VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study, conducted by Bombardier, et al., which compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of rofecoxib and naproxen, had indicated a significant 4-fold increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) in rofecoxib patients when compared with naproxen patients (0.4% vs 0.1%, RR 0.25) over the 12 month span of the study. The elevated risk began during the second month on rofecoxib. There was no significant difference in the mortality from cardiovascular events between the two groups, nor was there any significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction between the rofecoxib and naproxen treatment groups in patients without high cardiovascular risk. The difference in overall risk was by the patients at higher risk of heart attack, i.e. those meeting the criteria for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis of secondary cardiovascular events (previous myocardial infarction, angina, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or coronary artery bypass).
Translation: Among people with previous cardiac problems,
those on Vioxx experienced a greater risk of heart attacks than those taking naproxen. This rate was a .4% in naproxen patients and .1% in Vioxx patients. Where Merck got in trouble was when they claimed the difference was due to the protective effects of naproxen.
Merck's scientists interpreted the finding as a protective effect of naproxen, telling the FDA that the difference in heart attacks "is primarily due to" this protective effect...
Merck should have acknowledged and dealt with the data. That kind of an increase is significant, but it was still a very low number and among people with previous heart problems. Vioxx itself was supposed to be an amazingly effective pain reliever, as was another COX inhibitor, Bextra (which I took). Bextra was taken off the market as well. In the words of my pain management doctor (low back problems for years), it was clearly a safe medication. The point is that Vioxx was not the devil. It was not causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. It simply should have been counter-indicated for people with cardiac history. And Merck should have stepped up to the plate.