5 ms·

The mass production and overperscription of opiates by Big Pharma is not in societies best interest either. Where do you think that Fentanyl came from?

jhpankow 10y ago
Mexico due to a new and simpler clandestine process, not Big Pharma.
- 55555 10y ago
  China, actually.
tptacek 10y ago
Also a problem.
s73ver 10y ago
No, it's not. But being against Silk Road selling it doesn't mean we also don't want Rx sales to be more closely scrutinized. Saying, "But what about Big Pharma, huh?" isn't an effective argument, as many of us against Silk Road are also against their practices, and we'd like to see government agents investigating them more, as well.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >being against Silk Road selling it doesn't mean we also don't want Rx sales to be more closely scrutinized. Sure, I didn't mean to imply that, I'm just trying to find the root problem rather than attacking a branch of it that will grow right back - which seems like a waste of time to me.
vivekd 10y ago
that's like saying people die from car accidents and coal power so why not legalize assassinations. Just because there are drugs with potential negative effects being sold legally for medicinal purposes is not a good argument for legalizing the recreational use of hard drugs.
- int_19h 10y ago
  The only argument that matters for legalizing the recreational use of hard drugs is bodily autonomy. There may be other arguments to criminalize the distribution of hard drugs. But the idea that you can be penalized for putting some substance into your own body by your own volition outright stinks of using law to enforce morals.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    Every law is enforcing morals. Why is it illegal to murder, because society considers it immoral, why is it illegal to steal, because society considers it immoral. One of the costs of being a social creature is the willingness to circumvent our will to the will and moral standards of our society.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      It's illegal to murder and steal, because these actions directly harm other people. Now, yes, the notion that harming others is bad is fundamentally a question of morality as well. But it's much lower level than what's traditionally called "legislating morality".
    - icanhackit 10y ago
      Comparing taking someone's life or, less importantly, their property to getting high shows a terrible lack distinction and treats what is, at its worst, a mental or physical health issue and at its best someone just getting a buzz as criminal conduct. Looking at the world without nuance makes for a pretty cruel place, at which point it wouldn't be uncharitable for someone to say fuck your morals. Don't forget, societies have become better places by breaking unjust laws.
      - vivekd 10y ago
        >Comparing taking someone's life or, less importantly, their property to getting high shows a terrible lack distinction But that's not what I'm doing. >Don't forget, societies have become better places by breaking unjust laws. Sure that's true, but laws designed with the intention people from injecting potentially harmful substances into their bodies would hardly qualify as those "terribly unjust laws that must be opposed." If they were making all people of a certain race wear symbols or forcing them into concentration camps, then you have unjust laws worthy of being opposed. That is not on the same level as laws that ban certain substances because research have shown them to have great potential to harm physical and mental health. If you think that throwing drug addicts into prisons rather than rehabilitation centers is harmful (as your comment seems to suggest) you may have a point. However, that is an argument for prison and sentencing reform not an argument for legalization.

jhpankow 10y ago

Mexico due to a new and simpler clandestine process, not Big Pharma.

55555 10y ago
China, actually.

tptacek 10y ago

Also a problem.

s73ver 10y ago

No, it's not. But being against Silk Road selling it doesn't mean we also don't want Rx sales to be more closely scrutinized. Saying, "But what about Big Pharma, huh?" isn't an effective argument, as many of us against Silk Road are also against their practices, and we'd like to see government agents investigating them more, as well.

wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>being against Silk Road selling it doesn't mean we also don't want Rx sales to be more closely scrutinized. Sure, I didn't mean to imply that, I'm just trying to find the root problem rather than attacking a branch of it that will grow right back - which seems like a waste of time to me.

vivekd 10y ago

that's like saying people die from car accidents and coal power so why not legalize assassinations. Just because there are drugs with potential negative effects being sold legally for medicinal purposes is not a good argument for legalizing the recreational use of hard drugs.

int_19h 10y ago
The only argument that matters for legalizing the recreational use of hard drugs is bodily autonomy. There may be other arguments to criminalize the distribution of hard drugs. But the idea that you can be penalized for putting some substance into your own body by your own volition outright stinks of using law to enforce morals.
- vivekd 10y ago
  Every law is enforcing morals. Why is it illegal to murder, because society considers it immoral, why is it illegal to steal, because society considers it immoral. One of the costs of being a social creature is the willingness to circumvent our will to the will and moral standards of our society.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    It's illegal to murder and steal, because these actions directly harm other people. Now, yes, the notion that harming others is bad is fundamentally a question of morality as well. But it's much lower level than what's traditionally called "legislating morality".
  - icanhackit 10y ago
    Comparing taking someone's life or, less importantly, their property to getting high shows a terrible lack distinction and treats what is, at its worst, a mental or physical health issue and at its best someone just getting a buzz as criminal conduct. Looking at the world without nuance makes for a pretty cruel place, at which point it wouldn't be uncharitable for someone to say fuck your morals. Don't forget, societies have become better places by breaking unjust laws.
    - vivekd 10y ago
      >Comparing taking someone's life or, less importantly, their property to getting high shows a terrible lack distinction But that's not what I'm doing. >Don't forget, societies have become better places by breaking unjust laws. Sure that's true, but laws designed with the intention people from injecting potentially harmful substances into their bodies would hardly qualify as those "terribly unjust laws that must be opposed." If they were making all people of a certain race wear symbols or forcing them into concentration camps, then you have unjust laws worthy of being opposed. That is not on the same level as laws that ban certain substances because research have shown them to have great potential to harm physical and mental health. If you think that throwing drug addicts into prisons rather than rehabilitation centers is harmful (as your comment seems to suggest) you may have a point. However, that is an argument for prison and sentencing reform not an argument for legalization.