3 ms·

I could up until last year, by Codeine over the counter in France and there wasn’t a widespread opioid crisis. Some hysterical parents lobbied to get codeine pr

I could up until last year, by Codeine over the counter in France and there wasn’t a widespread opioid crisis. Some hysterical parents lobbied to get codeine prescription only in France and he hasn’t done anything for the levels of addiction— it only make it more obnoxious to have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for a €2.50 package of pills — pills that were amazing for coughs and headaches. I probably used that medicine once every few months when stricken by a bad cough or headache. Now, one has to spend €35 to visit a doctor just to get a pill that used to be readily available from the pharmacy. But hey, as long as we “protect the children” right? I can still buy liquor over the counter and it does more harm than most products one can consume.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I don't really get the justification for not allowing adults to buy any (legal) drugs they wish. If you have free public healthcare, I can sort of see that there's a right for the state to have control over drugs because the state then has to handle any harm caused by it. But what's the reasoning for not completely liberalising drugs? Is there a reasoning, or is it just a means to keep control over a population one feels they own? I'm not necessarily for complete liberalisation, just curious about how/why the system is as it is. In the UK the only apparent motivation for the original legislation in restricting drug sales, the Pharmacy Act 1868, appears to be that particular groups wanted to be the sole parties legally allowed to distribute those substances. Deaths fell, according to Wikipedia's mixed up statistics. But the motivation appears to have been unrelated to public safety. Meanwhile, of course, anyone with sufficient funds could simply buy the substances they wished. Wartime motivation (WWI) was to keep soldiers battle-ready. Then it seemed to become an international issue.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

I don't really get the justification for not allowing adults to buy any (legal) drugs they wish. If you have free public healthcare, I can sort of see that there's a right for the state to have control over drugs because the state then has to handle any harm caused by it. But what's the reasoning for not completely liberalising drugs? Is there a reasoning, or is it just a means to keep control over a population one feels they own? I'm not necessarily for complete liberalisation, just curious about how/why the system is as it is. In the UK the only apparent motivation for the original legislation in restricting drug sales, the Pharmacy Act 1868, appears to be that particular groups wanted to be the sole parties legally allowed to distribute those substances. Deaths fell, according to Wikipedia's mixed up statistics. But the motivation appears to have been unrelated to public safety. Meanwhile, of course, anyone with sufficient funds could simply buy the substances they wished. Wartime motivation (WWI) was to keep soldiers battle-ready. Then it seemed to become an international issue.