18 Jun 14
I just wondered what left wingers who favor drug legalization think about just doing away with such government entities as the FDA?
So if the government is going to allow us to take "dangerous" drugs that are not monitored by the FDA, then why have the FDA around at all?
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by whodeyI heard that lots of states are suing the state of Colorado because a lot of people are driving under the influence out of Colorado into other states and causing wrecks.
I just wondered what left wingers who favor drug legalization think about just doing away with such government entities as the FDA?
So if the government is going to allow us to take "dangerous" drugs that are not monitored by the FDA, then why have the FDA around at all?
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by whodeyWhy would legalized drugs not be monitored by the FDA? Doesn't it monitor the production of Budweiser beer or Starbucks coffee?
I just wondered what left wingers who favor drug legalization think about just doing away with such government entities as the FDA?
So if the government is going to allow us to take "dangerous" drugs that are not monitored by the FDA, then why have the FDA around at all?
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorrawhodey is just being a moron. The legalization of drugs would result in their production being monitored by the FDA. Whodey does not really love freedom or limited government. He loves incarceration and imposing his morals at the point of a gun.
Why would legalized drugs not be monitored by the FDA? Doesn't it monitor the production of Budweiser beer or Starbucks coffee?
18 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIt is an interesting conflict of interests.
I just wondered what left wingers who favor drug legalization think about just doing away with such government entities as the FDA?
So if the government is going to allow us to take "dangerous" drugs that are not monitored by the FDA, then why have the FDA around at all?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThe scope and powers of the FDA have historically grown only when something very bad happens to citizens due to an oversight or intentional adulteration by corporations. The most recent notable incident was substitution of melamine, an non-protein, for protein by the Chinese. (The test for protein actually measures only nitrogen, which is present in melamine.) The Sulfanilamide elixer and Thalidomide tragedies are earlier examples.
It is an interesting conflict of interests.
Like the stop sign erected after enough accidents at an intersection, FDA regulation will continue on this course. There is no conflict for the pragmatic left winger and there should be none for pragmatic right wingers as well.
19 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by HarrisonBergeronReally? Can ililegal drugs like crack cocaine or heroin ever be "safe"?
whodey is just being a moron. The legalization of drugs would result in their production being monitored by the FDA. Whodey does not really love freedom or limited government. He loves incarceration and imposing his morals at the point of a gun.
What about steroid use? Illegal steroids is a much larger money maker than the stuff out on the streets. Should people be allowed to take them in sporting events?
Will the FDA oversee crack houses and people shooting up steroids in order to hit that home run?
incidentally, you assume that I am not in favor of legalizing any and all drugs. Why?
19 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThe government oversees such things as smoking. They just force the corporations to put all kinds of warnings on the product indicating that it will kill them, then they let them smoke away. Then they tax the hell out of them and call them "sin taxes".
It is an interesting conflict of interests.
I assume the same would be done for the harder street drugs.
But then we get into experimental drugs. As it stands now, the FDA will not allow terminal cancer patients, for example, to try newly experimental drugs. Why? If they are dying why not let them roll the dice? If they are going to legalize street drugs, then I would think they would have no choice but to give consumers the choice.
19 Jun 14
2 edits
For those that champion pot as being equal to alcohol, did you know this?
About 450,000 die annually from smoking.
Only about 22,073 die from alcohol annually.
Of course, pot can be consumed in other ways, but everyone knows the method of preference is smoking it.
What should the FDA do, if anything? In fact, illegal and legal drugs only kill about 40,000 a year. It seems to me that smoking should be made illegal if anything.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/
But as this article points out, the government is addicted to the revenue from smoking.
19 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIf cannabis is legalized, alternatives to smoking cannabis (using a vaporizer, etc.) for those who so desire become more readily available. So that's another argument for legalization of cannabis, good job.
For those that champion pot as being equal to alcohol, did you know this?
About 450,000 die annually from smoking.
Only about 22,073 die from alcohol annually.
Of course, pot can be consumed in other ways, but everyone knows the method of preference is smoking it.
What should the FDA do, if anything? In fact, illegal and legal drugs only kill abo ...[text shortened]... r-da/
But as this article points out, the government is addicted to the revenue from smoking.
Of course, you're missing the whole point. If people want to kill themselves by smoking then that's their right and own responsibility, as long as they are made properly aware of the risks. You know, personal responsibility and stuff.
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by whodeycan alcohol be?
Really? Can ililegal drugs like crack cocaine or heroin ever be "safe"?
What about steroid use? Illegal steroids is a much larger money maker than the stuff out on the streets. Should people be allowed to take them in sporting events?
Will the FDA oversee crack houses and people shooting up steroids in order to hit that home run?
incidentally, you assume that I am not in favor of legalizing any and all drugs. Why?
yes, they can be. just like you regulate alcohol to not contain methanol, or any other poison, just like you ban absinthe or some other nasty booze. you state the conditions in which it can be used, how much is too much to get on the wheel, etc.
"Illegal steroids is a much larger money maker than the stuff out on the
streets"
and they are banned because they don't want to encourage athletes to feel they are required to get them. it is a different thing.
and we get back to regulating the conditions in which they are acceptable: you take steroids, your medical insurance gets more expensive. you are banned from sports.
"will the FDA oversee crack houses"
there won't be crack houses, not like they are now anyway.
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by whodey"About 450,000 die annually from smoking"
For those that champion pot as being equal to alcohol, did you know this?
About 450,000 die annually from smoking.
Only about 22,073 die from alcohol annually.
Of course, pot can be consumed in other ways, but everyone knows the method of preference is smoking it.
What should the FDA do, if anything? In fact, illegal and legal drugs only kill abo ...[text shortened]... r-da/
But as this article points out, the government is addicted to the revenue from smoking.
that's habitual smokers. not people smoking weed. people getting buzzed occasionally, even using tobacco as filler, do not fit in your number, just like people smoking a pack a week do not fit in there.
"It seems to me that smoking should be made illegal if anything."
what else should be made illegal? bacon? mcdonalds? rollercoasters? swimming? video games?
"But as this article points out, the government is addicted to the revenue from smoking"
so?
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by whodeyI think you are confused about what the job of the FDA is. Their job is not to control the legality of drugs or to stop dangerous drugs from being bought. Their job is to ensure that dangerous drugs are not sold as safe drugs.
I just wondered what left wingers who favor drug legalization think about just doing away with such government entities as the FDA?
So if the government is going to allow us to take "dangerous" drugs that are not monitored by the FDA, then why have the FDA around at all?
So if you want to buy sulfuric acid and drink it, its not the FDAs problem and they won't stop you. If you want to sell sulfuric acid, and tell people it is vodka and safe to drink, the FDA will stop you.
It is known that alcohol and smoking are dangerous drugs. The FDAs job is to ensure that they only provide the level of danger that is understood to exist when you buy them, and that appropriate information exists to the buyer so that he knows the risks he is taking.
Essentially their job is to ensure that a drug does what it says on the label.
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziReally? Where do you get your facts from?
"About 450,000 die annually from smoking"
that's habitual smokers. not people smoking weed. people getting buzzed occasionally, even using tobacco as filler, do not fit in your number, just like people smoking a pack a week do not fit in there.
"It seems to me that smoking should be made illegal if anything."
what else should be made illegal? bacon? m ...[text shortened]...
"But as this article points out, the government is addicted to the revenue from smoking"
so?