5 ms·

how can one think both of these things: 1. drugs should be legal 2. the sacklers are evil

by ffggvv 6y ago

pdeffebach 6y ago
Notions of consent are different. You do what the doctor tells you, and its an enormous ethical violation to recommend drugs without revealing the way you personally gain from it, or to encourage people to recommend drugs that are not medically necessary. With legalized drugs there isn't this trusted arbiter telling you what to do, so you can consent easier when you buy and take them. I agree that it's fraught and there are tons of ethical parallels that need to be worked out but that's one reason.
- sneak 6y ago
  It's sort of amazing that the reason we have these licensed people who are supposed to be "trusted" to give good instructions is because of the system of prohibition on the sale of drugs by the unlicensed. The argument is, of course, that by restricting the distribution to licensed professionals, the abuse of dangerous drugs would be curbed because the trade would be restricted to to those trained in their safe use. We have the worst of both worlds. This is all a result of prohibition.
abtom 6y ago
Because there's a difference between consuming something willingly and a shady corporation conspiring with the system to get unsuspecting people hooked onto their drug of choice for personal benefit?
- ffggvv 6y ago
  you don’t think of heroin is legalized, there will be corporations conspiring to do the same?
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    Not if it's legal for the addict (because mental health issue not criminal), but a crime for the pusher/distributor (because you're taking advantage of those w/ addiction tendencies).
- Udik 6y ago
  > shady corporation conspiring with the system Was "the system" also put on trial? Or it's just Purdue?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Is there? Everything you see on the store shelves is there because some corporation manipulated the store to put it there, and because that corporation expects to personally benefit from lots of people buying it.
typon 6y ago
If you don't actually examine the situation's complexity, then yes things can look pretty black and white, and wrong.
whiddershins 6y ago
Furthermore I’ve heard it is worse than this, that some very large percentage of opioid addicts were not previously prescribed opioids. That the path to addiction in many cases was purely extralegal. This was on a single Reddit thread with either one or zero citations, so I’m unsure about it. But I wish I knew the truth of this, because it would be one of those things where the common narrative is upside down.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > that some very large percentage of opioid addicts were not previously prescribed opioids. Doctors massively over-prescribed opioids. This meant American homes were awash with prescription meds, and lots of these were not needed by the person they were prescribed for. So people started giving away their meds to relatives or neighbours, or selling them. Or people started stealing meds from their relatives to distribute. The underlying cause is the same: massive over-prescribing of opioids.
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    Citations? The point of my comment is I would love some facts to back up this ‘known’ story.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Here's one from 2014. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs2014/NSDUH-DetTabs2014.htm#tab6-47b https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTab... I think I've linked to the right table, but just in case it's "Table 6.47B – Source Where Pain Relievers Were Obtained for Most Recent Nonmedical Use among Past Year Users Aged 12 or Older, by Age Group: Percentages, Annual Averages Based on 2011-2012 and 2013-2014", but there's a lot of information in this link.
curiousgal 6y ago
1. You chose to take that drug willingly knowing the full effects. 2. You had a drug recommended to you by your physician.
- bzb6 6y ago
  1 is false for almost every person and drug, including alcohol and tobacco.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Sackler are accused of misleading both doctors and the general public, regarding the addictive nature of opioids. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/01/oxycontin-sackler-family-profits-opioid-crisis-court-files-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/01/oxycontin-sa...
CameronNemo 6y ago
Do you have an example of someone thinking both of those things? Where drugs == opiates (which are already legal in many forms)? Different drugs have different risk profiles. Most people I have heard from want to decriminalize heroin, not legalize it.
scythe 6y ago
"Legal" is not a synonym for "prescribed unnecessarily".
rstuart4133 6y ago
> how can one think both of these things: drugs should be legal Easy. In Australia cigarettes are legal. But advertising or indeed any form of promotion (including attractive packaging) is not. If Oxytocin were legal was legal in Australia in the same way tobacco is, the Slackers would have had their arses hauled off to jail ages ago. Granted, the USA doesn't seem to have reached the same common sense compromise when it comes to legalising cannabis. You seem to go from mandatory jail terms for anyone who touches the stuff, to full on "government get out of my way so I seduce every sucker I can find into full on addiction". There are some aspects of the USA I fear I will never understand.

how can one think both of these things: 1. drugs should be legal 2. the sacklers are evil

by ffggvv 6y ago

how can one think both of these things: 1. drugs should be legal 2. the sacklers are evil

Notions of consent are different. You do what the doctor tells you, and its an enormous ethical violation to recommend drugs without revealing the way you personally gain from it, or to encourage people to recommend drugs that are not medically necessary. With legalized drugs there isn't this trusted arbiter telling you what to do, so you can consent easier when you buy and take them. I agree that it's fraught and there are tons of ethical parallels that need to be worked out but that's one reason.

sneak 6y ago
It's sort of amazing that the reason we have these licensed people who are supposed to be "trusted" to give good instructions is because of the system of prohibition on the sale of drugs by the unlicensed. The argument is, of course, that by restricting the distribution to licensed professionals, the abuse of dangerous drugs would be curbed because the trade would be restricted to to those trained in their safe use. We have the worst of both worlds. This is all a result of prohibition.

abtom 6y ago

Because there's a difference between consuming something willingly and a shady corporation conspiring with the system to get unsuspecting people hooked onto their drug of choice for personal benefit?

ffggvv 6y ago
you don’t think of heroin is legalized, there will be corporations conspiring to do the same?
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Not if it's legal for the addict (because mental health issue not criminal), but a crime for the pusher/distributor (because you're taking advantage of those w/ addiction tendencies).
Udik 6y ago
> shady corporation conspiring with the system Was "the system" also put on trial? Or it's just Purdue?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Is there? Everything you see on the store shelves is there because some corporation manipulated the store to put it there, and because that corporation expects to personally benefit from lots of people buying it.

typon 6y ago

If you don't actually examine the situation's complexity, then yes things can look pretty black and white, and wrong.

whiddershins 6y ago

Furthermore I’ve heard it is worse than this, that some very large percentage of opioid addicts were not previously prescribed opioids. That the path to addiction in many cases was purely extralegal. This was on a single Reddit thread with either one or zero citations, so I’m unsure about it. But I wish I knew the truth of this, because it would be one of those things where the common narrative is upside down.

DanBC 6y ago
> that some very large percentage of opioid addicts were not previously prescribed opioids. Doctors massively over-prescribed opioids. This meant American homes were awash with prescription meds, and lots of these were not needed by the person they were prescribed for. So people started giving away their meds to relatives or neighbours, or selling them. Or people started stealing meds from their relatives to distribute. The underlying cause is the same: massive over-prescribing of opioids.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  Citations? The point of my comment is I would love some facts to back up this ‘known’ story.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Here's one from 2014. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs2014/NSDUH-DetTabs2014.htm#tab6-47b https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTab... I think I've linked to the right table, but just in case it's "Table 6.47B – Source Where Pain Relievers Were Obtained for Most Recent Nonmedical Use among Past Year Users Aged 12 or Older, by Age Group: Percentages, Annual Averages Based on 2011-2012 and 2013-2014", but there's a lot of information in this link.

curiousgal 6y ago

1. You chose to take that drug willingly knowing the full effects. 2. You had a drug recommended to you by your physician.

bzb6 6y ago
1 is false for almost every person and drug, including alcohol and tobacco.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Sackler are accused of misleading both doctors and the general public, regarding the addictive nature of opioids. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/01/oxycontin-sackler-family-profits-opioid-crisis-court-files-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/01/oxycontin-sa...

CameronNemo 6y ago

Do you have an example of someone thinking both of those things? Where drugs == opiates (which are already legal in many forms)? Different drugs have different risk profiles. Most people I have heard from want to decriminalize heroin, not legalize it.

scythe 6y ago

"Legal" is not a synonym for "prescribed unnecessarily".

rstuart4133 6y ago

> how can one think both of these things: drugs should be legal Easy. In Australia cigarettes are legal. But advertising or indeed any form of promotion (including attractive packaging) is not. If Oxytocin were legal was legal in Australia in the same way tobacco is, the Slackers would have had their arses hauled off to jail ages ago. Granted, the USA doesn't seem to have reached the same common sense compromise when it comes to legalising cannabis. You seem to go from mandatory jail terms for anyone who touches the stuff, to full on "government get out of my way so I seduce every sucker I can find into full on addiction". There are some aspects of the USA I fear I will never understand.