|
KillHour posted:With the exception of antibiotics, I believe you should. Even if it's bleach. Yes I get it, you're one of the people we need to ban known useless for human consumption but dangerous chemicals because otherwise you would buy and use them. Intelligent people know that it's a good thing that snake oil of all sorts is banned from sale. I mean it's especially funny for you to make that post because you're aware enough to understand that using antibiotics needlessly is bad, but conspicuously refuse to extend that realization to anything else.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Gay people already had all manner of civil protections and legal rights Tell that to the 40% of homeless kids who are LGBT, or my friends who've had their leases mysteriously not renewed after they came out, or the 50% higher unemployment rate LGBT people have nationwide, and the 24% poverty rate of lesbian and bisexual women. One in five trans people have been homeless, 40% of trans people have attempted succeeds and state legislatures are actively working to try criminalize trans people existing in public, you complete shitstain and it is a drat good thing that the justice department is on the ball as it is. Complain rightly about the war on drugs being racist if you want, mourn the lives lost to our complete mockery of a criminal justice system, but don't you dare try to sweep my blood under the rug because you want to get high. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yes I get it, you're one of the people we need to ban known useless for human consumption but dangerous chemicals because otherwise you would buy and use them. No, it's not. If you want to use snake oil, be my guest. Using antibiotics needlessly is dangerous to every other person on the planet. I don't give a gently caress if you are into homeopathy, but I care if you are the Petri dish for the super bug that is going to wipe out half the population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Seems like there's an obvious solution for that one. We don't want people drinking bleach, but we do want bleach to be available, because having clean surfaces is preferable to waiting for people to get cholera and then need antibiotics. So we allow bleach to be sold, but we don't allow the adverts or the packaging to say "drink this bleach", instead allowing it to say "mix this bleach with water and clean your toilet with it." You could even have a set of agreed upon symbols, a skull and crossbones or a sick looking guy or something, and force manufacturers of bleach to put it on their product, and have an MSDS available online. At least until peer reviewed studies say that controlled tests show that the benefits of drinking bleach outweigh the harms, which I don't think will be any time soon. That way you get to keep your bleach and you don't get many people drinking it. You could do it for all kinds of useful things like battery acid. Where the ethical dilemma comes in is when some people would want to consume something despite knowing it is harmful because the pleasure (or satiating of cravings) outweighs for them personally the harm, such as alcohol or any other drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Seems like there's an obvious solution for that one. This guy gets it. This is a good post. I don't think there is an ethical dilemma beyond "educate and reduce harm as much as possible" though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
KillHour posted:No, it's not. If you want to use snake oil, be my guest. Using antibiotics needlessly is dangerous to every other person on the planet. I don't give a gently caress if you are into homeopathy, but I care if you are the Petri dish for the super bug that is going to wipe out half the population. Actually we shouldn't allow people to run industries on the back of things that not only don't work, but often actively harm. You have to be pretty ignorant to think that returning to pre-FDA laws would be a good idea. Allowing fake medicine is as dangerous to national health as overprescription of antibiotics. I get that you came up with a stupid slogan to defend because you really want to smoke weed, but it's a stupid stance to take. KillHour posted:This guy gets it. This is a good post. I don't think there is an ethical dilemma beyond "educate and reduce harm as much as possible" though. It's a terrible post because there's no legit use of food laced with lead, or various "medicines" that consist primarily of heavy metals or nothing at all, or fake weed #4593 that mostly just causes seizures. I mean again, you already contradicted your statement "you should be able to use anything you want!!" by saying "but not antibiotics anytime you want". fishmech fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Actually we shouldn't allow people to run industries on the back of things that not only don't work, but often actively harm. Like bankers and credit? Most things need regulation, not prohibtion. Just because something 'doesn't work', doesn't mean it should be illegal. It means it should be regulated accordingly. KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Don't conflate misleading advertising/sales efforts with consumption. It's also not hard to resolve this dilemma: a basic tenet of liberal thought is that you ought to be able to do as you like, as long as your actions don't infringe upon the rights of others.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Actually we shouldn't allow people to run industries on the back of things that not only don't work, but often actively harm. You have to be pretty ignorant to think that returning to pre-FDA laws would be a good idea. Allowing fake medicine is as dangerous to national health as overprescription of antibiotics. God, you're thick. And putting words in my mouth. I never said to get rid of the FDA. The FDA exists and we still have homeopathy, so obviously you're arguing for something totally different but putting up a strawman; which, by the way, is why everybody hates arguing with you! The government should tell people "you can't call that food because it has lead in it" or "you can't call that a cancer medicine because there's no evidence it is." But they SHOULDN'T tell people "you can't have this at all because it has no good use." Because the people in the government abuse that to ban things they don't like. Good reasons to ban or restrict access to something: -Destroys the environment (leaded gasoline, asbestos) -Creates a disease that could kill millions if used unchecked (antibiotics) -Intended to kill or harm other people or property (guns, bombs, tanks, cruise missiles) Bad reasons to ban or restrict access to something: - You'll hurt yourself with it because you're so loving stupid and we know what's good for you! If fake weed #4593 has a big label on it that says it causes seizures and you really shouldn't smoke it and the real stuff is just as easy to get, guess what? People won't buy it. You don't need to ban it because that's what got us here in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:It's also not hard to resolve this dilemma: a basic tenet of liberal thought is that you ought to be able to do as you like, as long as your actions don't infringe upon the rights of others. Nah, democracy is ordered liberty. The problem with the drug laws is they violate the tenets of equal liberty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:there's no legit use of food laced with lead fishmech posted:or various "medicines" that consist primarily of heavy metals or nothing at all fishmech posted:or fake weed #4593 that mostly just causes seizures.  ' being subject to very high scrutiny, but I don't see why it should be prohibited for sale as a lab reagent. Much like the fake heroin containing MPTP that caused Parkinson's proved very useful to researchers studying Parkinson's, fake weed that causes seizures might be very useful to researchers studying seizures, and the less hoops they have to jump through to get it, the better. Probably shouldn't be sold in gas stations though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Like bankers and credit? No, we do need, and currently have, prohibition of tons of useless and dangerous "medicines" and other things. The regulation is that you can't make or sell them anymore. I know you didn't just stumble in here from a time portal to 1875. LuciferMorningstar posted:Don't conflate misleading advertising/sales efforts with consumption. Show me where I said illegalizing consumption, rather than banning the production and sales, which thereby makes consumption extraordinarily difficult. KillHour posted:God, you're thick. And putting words in my mouth. I never said to get rid of the FDA. The FDA exists and we still have homeopathy, so obviously you're arguing for something totally different but putting up a strawman; which, by the way, is why everybody hates arguing with you! No, you're thick. And yes you did implicitly say to get rid of the FDa because you said people should be able to ingest anything they wanted, which the FDA prevents. The FDA specifically does not prevent homeopathy because a stupid law was passed that allowed homeopathy many decades back. Actually, the government should, and does, prevent selling food with lead in it regardless of whether it's sold "as food". And because of that you can't have leaded food legally unless you personally went to effort to grind up some loving lead bars into your food like some kind of weirdo. And so on. I'm sorry you picked a stupid reason weed shouldn't be banned when there's 5000 reasons to not ban weed that aren't stupid, but you need to stop defending that reason. Guavanaut posted:I can buy lead acetate anytime I want though. Apparently the Romans used it as a sweetener. I wouldn't bother trying though, because the containers it comes in say 'poison' and 'refer to MSDS if ingested'. If they said 'sweetener' and 'put this in food' I'd be unhappy with that and would say that the containers labeled in such a fashion should be banned. But you can't sell food with that in it, because that would be a horrible thing to do. Learn to think You shouldn't be fine with people selling things that we know don't work, and are in fact highly toxic. There are no claims to validate. They are not. People will still be making and selling them for various stupid reasons so long as they can. I don't know why you're insistent on claiming they're "lab reagents" that must be useful either. You might as well say shooting random people on the street in the leg should be legal because there's some great research opportunities! fishmech fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:
This is fair, but remember that America has already seen deaths due to non-pasteurised milk being sold "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" alongside many people saying "nudge nudge, it's for human consumption "Not to say that I disagree with the principle of what you're saying, but that sadly a lot of people can be taken advantage of by assholes. A potential compromise is to require federal licensing to buy poo poo like that and to not be allowed to sell on to people who aren't fellow licence holders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:This is fair, but remember that America has already seen deaths due to non-pasteurised milk being sold "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" alongside many people saying "nudge nudge, it's for human consumption Or we can continue to keep such things illegal for sale, because if you really absolutely must have such things, learn to do it your own self.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
KillHour posted:- You'll hurt yourself with it because you're so loving stupid and we know what's good for you! Again, if we're doing theory drugs, it's easy to come up with drugs in which regulated access to those who want it despite the side effects would still be extremely harmful. It'd be hard to believe that there are no actual compounds that fall on that side of the line. Here are a couple: - An extremely desirable and addictive party drug that destroys the ability of the user to produce or support X-chromosome sperm after one use. - An opiate that causes one to enter a persistent vegetative state 1 year from first use, 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, we do need, and currently have, prohibition of tons of useless and dangerous "medicines" and other things. The regulation is that you can't make or sell them anymore. It's idiots like you that make those chocolates with toys in them illegal here because someone might choke on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
KillHour posted:It's idiots like you that make those chocolates with toys in them illegal here because someone might choke on it. Kinder Eggs taste like poo poo and have lovely toys. Sorry you refuse to accept that many things need to be actively banned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Or we can continue to keep such things illegal for sale, because if you really absolutely must have such things, learn to do it your own self. Definitely - I'm not talking about casual consumption but in that he talked about lab reagents. I'm 100% fine with acyl chlorides being absolutely inaccessible to consumers in 100% of circumstances, but I can understand chemical labs wanting to have them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:This isn't free you know - just like with prohibition, there are all sorts of (opportunity) costs here. In a capitalist society, there's still a lingering incentive to trick people into consuming it, much as there is for homeopathic medicine and all that. This has costs because the people who are misled are harmed, and the people doing the misleading are rewarded. You have to pay to regulate it and enforce regulations and punish violators. You have to pay the medical bills of those who ignore the warnings. Maybe it works out that this is still more desirable than prohibition for every compound, but maybe not. You really have to go to great lengths to find those examples though. And there's the opportunity cost of enforcing the ban, which as we've seen, is quite high if the drug is at all desirable. If it's not desirable, who's using it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:- An extremely desirable and addictive party drug that destroys the ability of the user to produce or support X-chromosome sperm after one use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You really have to go to great lengths to find those examples though. You absolutely don't. You only need to see what was sold in the past, and is now illegal. Like all the products that were shoved full of radioactive material for the hell of it. Or many of the patent medicines of pre-FDA times. I understand that maybe, you just had a really lovely school that didn't bother to teach why regulations and things like the FDA had to be invented, but it's really easy to learn these things these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You really have to go to great lengths to find those examples though. And there's the opportunity cost of enforcing the ban, which as we've seen, is quite high if the drug is at all desirable. If it's not desirable, who's using it? Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You really have to go to great lengths to find those examples though. And there's the opportunity cost of enforcing the ban, which as we've seen, is quite high if the drug is at all desirable. If it's not desirable, who's using it? Uh, have you not noticed the opiate crisis in the USA? Despite other painkillers being available and less dangerous?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Kinder Eggs taste like poo poo and have lovely toys. Sorry you refuse to accept that many things need to be actively banned. My mother has stage 3 cancer and the most promising drugs aren't available to her because they haven't made it past the FDA yet. These are drugs that are widely used successfully in other countries, such as Japan. Even though she is college educated and knows they may offer her the best chance, she can't make that decision for herself - the government made it for her. But no, you're right. Ban everything until it's proven safe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:The point is that by theorizing a counter-example where your general principle obviously doesn't hold, I've shown that it is not a particularly good general principle. This means we now have to go back and actually do the ethical calculus for each thing and not just handwave some platitudes about liberty while ignoring the consequences. The point is, for every compound, you're choosing between two outcomes that have positives and negatives that have to be weighed. I'm sure the cost of enforcing the ban on leaded gasoline has been quite high as well. Obviously you feel one way about asbestos, and another about weed, but that doesn't mean we ought to skip the reasoning for other less obvious things. I would argue that if you were completely informed, you should be able to use the drugs you invented anyways. Even something that would surely kill you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Uh, have you not noticed the opiate crisis in the USA? Despite other painkillers being available and less dangerous? You should be able to get addicted to opiates if you want to. Doctors shouldn't be pushing them, but that's another issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Is there an equivalent for Y-chromosome sperm and is the cost of one use of your drug and one of mine less than the cost of a vasectomy? Because I see a legitimate market here. I see a legitimate market anyways if you don't want girls. Edit: sorry for multiple posts in a row. Phone posting, and quoting multiple people in one post is a pita. KillHour fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Definitely - I'm not talking about casual consumption but in that he talked about lab reagents. I'm 100% fine with acyl chlorides being absolutely inaccessible to consumers in 100% of circumstances, but I can understand chemical labs wanting to have them. Others are based on volume, if you want a 42 gallon drum of potassium permanganate that's different to if you want a 10g vial. Some are based on things as simple as 'are you a business/limited company?' The problem with the scheduled substances list is that it throws a big exception into this logical scheme, that certain things are very hard to get for legitimate researchers not because you need a special facility to handle them, or because you might blow poo poo up, but because someone 50 years ago saw a dirty long hair freak enjoying them too much. And that has and does interfere with research quite a lot. And then you have your edge cases, like fake weed #4593. They don't provide a desirable effect, they are middling poisons but probably not great chemical weapons, they could be very useful in seizure research, and they're entirely a product of cannabis prohibition. In a reality where cannabis was legal 20 years back and nobody ever used fake weed #4593, there would be no need to do anything with them legislation wise. The only people that would buy them were labs, the only people that would sell them were lab suppliers. If cannabis were legalized tomorrow, it would probably be reasonable to say that you have to sign a thing or whatever to buy fake weed #4593, but I don't see why it should be scheduled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You should be able to get addicted to opiates if you want to. Doctors shouldn't be pushing them, but that's another issue. This doesn't disagree with my point, though? There's a special difference between 'doctors shouldn't be pushing them' and 'doctors shouldn't be allowed to prescribe them without good reason' and the tragedy lies in the lack of realisation of the difference there. To the detriment of innocent Americans. Yes, marijuana is comparatively harmless (there's not enough research, for some reason) but that doesn't mean sensible regulation shouldn't be in place. I don't think we're actually arguing against each other on this point, though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
KillHour posted:My mother has stage 3 cancer and the most promising drugs aren't available to her because they haven't made it past the FDA yet. These are drugs that are widely used successfully in other countries, such as Japan. Even though she is college educated and knows they may offer her the best chance, she can't make that decision for herself - the government made it for her. But no, you're right. Ban everything until it's proven safe. And I should care why? The FDA being cautious is why you only got thalidomide babies in Europe, the FDA waited for good studies, which resulted in it first not allowed in the US at all, and then only allowed for women who were not pregnant. There's also a mechanism in place for getting on unproven as opposed to known useless drugs - it's applying for clinical trials. And it's competely unethical for doctors to be prescribing new medications willy-nilly because hey it might work. Or she could practice medical tourism, if she insists on being at risk and can't get in on clinical trials. KillHour posted:I would argue that if you were completely informed, you should be able to use the drugs you invented anyways. Even something that would surely kill you. Yes we understand that you are arguing for a very stupid thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:In a reality where cannabis was legal 20 years back and nobody ever used fake weed #4593, there would be no need to do anything with them legislation wise. The only people that would buy them were labs, the only people that would sell them were lab suppliers. If cannabis were legalized tomorrow, it would probably be reasonable to say that you have to sign a thing or whatever to buy fake weed #4593, but I don't see why it should be scheduled. Mostly because of the path of least harm. I agree that in a sensible world people would say "fake weed #4593? That's loving arsenic you shithead" but we don't live in a sensible world (yet?) and in this case I'd rather a nanny state over a country of sufferers. Heck look at krokodil - it's obviously bad, and illegal, but people are still using it. I agree with legalising recreational drugs, but I also agree with being an rear end in a top hat towards people trying to peddle lovely knock-offs, in order to drive consumer demand towards the least-damaging ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Heck look at krokodil - it's obviously bad, and illegal, but people are still using it. This right here is my point. Banning things doesn't stop people from using them. Things should be regulated in regards to labeling and advertising, but banning them does nothing to help the situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And I should care why? The FDA being cautious is why you only got thalidomide babies in Europe, the FDA waited for good studies, which resulted in it first not allowed in the US at all, and then only allowed for women who were not pregnant. She went into a clinical trial and ended up in the control group. She can't afford medical tourism. There is no moral or practical reason she shouldn't be able to get whatever treatment she wants. She's obviously not going to gave a thalidomide baby. Saying "but we don't know if this is safe!" to someone with a 50% chance of 5 year survival is loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:and in this case I'd rather a nanny state over a country of sufferers. In this case, you just end up with both a nanny state AND a country of sufferers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm going to stop you right here because it's still completely legal to fire someone, kick them out of a home or never rent/sell to them in the first place, and so on, just for being gay, in tons of states today. You don't know anything about what you're trying to talk about. The only federal "civil protection" they'd had since 2003 had been the right to not literally go to jail just for having gay sex, which until that supreme court ruling had still been illegal and enforced in multiple states. Yes, but gays aren't prosecuted by government itself, whereas marijuana enthusiasts are. Your complaints stem from other humans being lovely towards gay people, whereas the prosecuting of people for possessing and using marijuana is the result of government action, which Democrats/liberals can actually have far more influence over than they can over human beings being inhospitable towards homosexuals. The Democrats obsession with LGBT issues does come at the expense of other issues because political capital is not unlimited.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This right here is my point. Banning things doesn't stop people from using them. Things should be regulated in regards to labeling and advertising, but banning them does nothing to help the situation. I agree - which is why I think better alternatives should be legal and financially more viable, while the bad poo poo is illegal. My opiate comparison is entirely along these lines - we have good non-opiate painkillers that do the job 90% of the time. Sure, have it possible in those rare cases, but make it less financially viable for the doc to prescribe the lovely option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Krokodil is a direct symptom of Russia's horrendous treatment of opiate addicts, cutting off methadone treatment and needle exchanges because they're 'immoral' and then really attacking the black market. The black market for opiates is terrible, but that's what happens when you attack it in that direction. Contrary to what the tabloids claimed, it really didn't take off in any country with half decent addiction treatment. Or in countries where the black market can afford to bribe the law I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
KillHour posted:In this case, you just end up with both a nanny state AND a country of sufferers. I agree. That said, America really does not have a nanny state in this regard, or at least as I meant it - it certainly has a shithead looking over your shoulder and handcuffing you for random bullshit, but it doesn't have a loving carer doing the best to help you, which is what a nanny state should actually mean. objects in mirror posted:Yes, but gays aren't prosecuted by government itself, whereas marijuana enthusiasts are. Your complaints stem from other humans being lovely towards gay people, whereas the prosecuting of people for possessing and using marijuana is the result of government action, which Democrats/liberals can actually have far more influence over than they can over human beings being inhospitable towards homosexuals. The Democrats obsession with LGBT issues does come at the expense of other issues because political capital is not unlimited. There is no constitutional protection for drug use of any kind. The Democrats do not control either Legislature and the national will isn't there to make it so. The 14th amendment has CONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION and still can't manage power, why should the right to ingest one single substance suddenly overcome the ridiculous hurdles to pass legislation in a Republican legislature that frowns on weed use? LGBTQ rights are already in the constitution, weed isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I agree - which is why I think better alternatives should be legal and financially more viable, while the bad poo poo is illegal. My opiate comparison is entirely along these lines - we have good non-opiate painkillers that do the job 90% of the time. Sure, have it possible in those rare cases, but make it less financially viable for the doc to prescribe the lovely option. If you make the good stuff legal and more financially viable, what's the point of making the bad poo poo illegal again? You're already strongly pushing people towards other alternatives without dealing with the drug war. If someone STILL chooses opiates, despite the negatives, jail isn't going to dissuade them. Things you don't like don't have to be illegal just because you don't like them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Krokodil is a direct symptom of Russia's horrendous treatment of opiate addicts, cutting off methadone treatment and needle exchanges because they're 'immoral' and then really attacking the black market. The black market for opiates is terrible, but that's what happens when you attack it in that direction. And America's system is the same, sadly. The only difference is they had other lovely drugs before krokodil could enter the ecosystem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:12
|
|