[quote] How about those >100,000 Americans who die every year as a result of adverse reactions to prescription drugs?.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Dying of illegal use of drugs and dying from adverse reactions to prescription drugs is quite different and should not be comparate.
You take medical drugs ( well i expect it ...) because you are ill, and because you need it. When you said 100 000 american die every year of adverse reactions to prescription drugs you must ask also how many people are still alive because they take medical drugs ? : dont ask me i have not the answer. I just can say that when you introduce a new drug you must proove that the positive effect are more important than the negative ones, the benefits must be more important than the adverse effects, especially the lethals ones.
It's would be similar to make a comparison between surgeon and serial killer : a surgeon will killed by adverse effect and complications more people than an average serial killer : good comparison. A surgeon try to help people, the serial killer not. A world without serial killer will be better, a world without surgeon ( at this time of our history) will be not.
Well i know Samantha Joanne Ollendale, that you was not thinking of this when you made this comparison, but i have to say it.
[quote] With all due respect, that is complete and absolute rubbish. The Netherlands has been pursuing a "less emphasis on punishment" approach for a number of years with extremely positive results
Proportionately, there are *far less* drug problems, addicts and drug related crime in Holland compared to the United States. Perhaps you prefer higher crime rates, and the traditional penal "solution".<hr></blockquote>
Samantha - did you see that article I linked to above about the situation in the UK?
<strong>Until my food gets paid for by tax money I'll be damned if Spanky McCrackfiend gets his rock on my dime.
I'm all for legalizing weed, but this talk of making hard drugs legal for "medical use" is absolutely ridiculous. And for free!? You've gone stark mad if you think it's logical to give people freerecreational drugs.
So we save money from not fighting the WoD (which you will also assert is a monkey maker for some, interesting duality there) so we should funnel into fostering drug use instead of giving it back to the taxpayers?
Some real domestic policy geniuses around here!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Groverat, that sounds suitably tough and butch, but I don't think you've thought this through. Providing drugs on prescription to medically assessed addicts is not "fostering drug use", it is preventing crime by desperate addicts. Heroin interferes with fundamental brain chemistry and is one of the most addictive substances known to man - any idea what a serious smack addiction costs? It's no wonder that so many addicts steal to feed their disease.
But perhaps The Blue Meanie is forgetting that Groverat's tax dimes don't even go towards above-board medicinal prescriptions. Sometimes we Brits get so used to having a socialised medical system that it is hard to remember that places like the US don't....
Did you miss both how insane and inhumane the whole idea was, and my little disclaimer about how it wasn't at all serious at the bottom?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps The Blue Meanie overreacted..... It can sometimes be difficult to tell whether someone is joking on these bulletin boards - that's what they invented smilies for! Nevertheless, jokes about cleaning up the gene pool are rarely funny, and I feel strongly that it is wrong (not to say hypocritical) to demonise drug users.
Comments
Dying of illegal use of drugs and dying from adverse reactions to prescription drugs is quite different and should not be comparate.
You take medical drugs ( well i expect it ...) because you are ill, and because you need it. When you said 100 000 american die every year of adverse reactions to prescription drugs you must ask also how many people are still alive because they take medical drugs ? : dont ask me i have not the answer. I just can say that when you introduce a new drug you must proove that the positive effect are more important than the negative ones, the benefits must be more important than the adverse effects, especially the lethals ones.
It's would be similar to make a comparison between surgeon and serial killer : a surgeon will killed by adverse effect and complications more people than an average serial killer : good comparison. A surgeon try to help people, the serial killer not. A world without serial killer will be better, a world without surgeon ( at this time of our history) will be not.
Well i know Samantha Joanne Ollendale, that you was not thinking of this when you made this comparison, but i have to say it.
Proportionately, there are *far less* drug problems, addicts and drug related crime in Holland compared to the United States. Perhaps you prefer higher crime rates, and the traditional penal "solution".<hr></blockquote>
Samantha - did you see that article I linked to above about the situation in the UK?
<strong>Until my food gets paid for by tax money I'll be damned if Spanky McCrackfiend gets his rock on my dime.
I'm all for legalizing weed, but this talk of making hard drugs legal for "medical use" is absolutely ridiculous. And for free!? You've gone stark mad if you think it's logical to give people free recreational drugs.
So we save money from not fighting the WoD (which you will also assert is a monkey maker for some, interesting duality there) so we should funnel into fostering drug use instead of giving it back to the taxpayers?
Some real domestic policy geniuses around here!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Groverat, that sounds suitably tough and butch, but I don't think you've thought this through. Providing drugs on prescription to medically assessed addicts is not "fostering drug use", it is preventing crime by desperate addicts. Heroin interferes with fundamental brain chemistry and is one of the most addictive substances known to man - any idea what a serious smack addiction costs? It's no wonder that so many addicts steal to feed their disease.
But perhaps The Blue Meanie is forgetting that Groverat's tax dimes don't even go towards above-board medicinal prescriptions. Sometimes we Brits get so used to having a socialised medical system that it is hard to remember that places like the US don't....
<strong>
Did you miss both how insane and inhumane the whole idea was, and my little disclaimer about how it wasn't at all serious at the bottom?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps The Blue Meanie overreacted.....