4 ms·

You assume people understand the risks involved. I dont think they are capable of understanding the risks without having a background in chemistry. It's myopic

by eezurr 8y ago

You assume people understand the risks involved. I dont think they are capable of understanding the risks without having a background in chemistry. It's myopic to give uneducated people the ability to do chemistry in an uncontrolled environment that does not have proper ventilation, disposal, and safety/sanitary equipment. Tobacco, alcohol, driving vehicles, and fire arms have all been regulated to limit use to prevent as much collateral damage as possible. It's no longer just their business when they're behind a steering wheel or holding a gun, or smoking/drinking in public.

ethbro 8y ago
That feels like banning the good because it's not perfect. Are you comfortable with telling a heroin user using dirty needles that "We can't allow you access to HIV retardants because we can't guarantee your safety"? Concern for the public is valid, but it's a slippery slope that freedom often gets pushed down.
- eezurr 8y ago
  That isn't a legitimate scenario. They were asking the drug dealer(s) to cut their heroin with the drug. Now an untrained individual is responsible for mixing in the proper dosage for their clients (for a drug that has not been proven to be safe/work, and maybe certain ratios dont dissolve quickly enough, or maybe smoking the heroin causes the drug to under go a molecular transformation from the heat), which is completely uncontrollable anyways because everyone shoots w/ different amounts and frequencies? AND assuming the dealer cares enough to notify each of their clients? You think that is ethical? To answer your direct question though, yes, I am comfortable telling heroin users they cannot have access to HIV retardants until they have been proven safe, because you've made the false claim that this drug is actually an HIV retardant, when in reality it is untested.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Well, we have fundamentally different moral valuations of situations then.
    - chriscappuccio 8y ago
      It's risky. That's what he's saying. Perhaps, very risky. The DEA has been finding levamisole and phenacetin in cocaine. Levamisole in most cocaine these days! Levamisole used long term destroys the immune system, like a chemical form of AIDS. Being associated with cutting street drugs is disgusting.

by eezurr 8y ago

ethbro 8y ago

That feels like banning the good because it's not perfect. Are you comfortable with telling a heroin user using dirty needles that "We can't allow you access to HIV retardants because we can't guarantee your safety"? Concern for the public is valid, but it's a slippery slope that freedom often gets pushed down.

eezurr 8y ago
That isn't a legitimate scenario. They were asking the drug dealer(s) to cut their heroin with the drug. Now an untrained individual is responsible for mixing in the proper dosage for their clients (for a drug that has not been proven to be safe/work, and maybe certain ratios dont dissolve quickly enough, or maybe smoking the heroin causes the drug to under go a molecular transformation from the heat), which is completely uncontrollable anyways because everyone shoots w/ different amounts and frequencies? AND assuming the dealer cares enough to notify each of their clients? You think that is ethical? To answer your direct question though, yes, I am comfortable telling heroin users they cannot have access to HIV retardants until they have been proven safe, because you've made the false claim that this drug is actually an HIV retardant, when in reality it is untested.
- ethbro 8y ago
  Well, we have fundamentally different moral valuations of situations then.
  - chriscappuccio 8y ago
    It's risky. That's what he's saying. Perhaps, very risky. The DEA has been finding levamisole and phenacetin in cocaine. Levamisole in most cocaine these days! Levamisole used long term destroys the immune system, like a chemical form of AIDS. Being associated with cutting street drugs is disgusting.