4 ms·
Illegality is not an intrinsic property of anything, so of course that's not what the headline suggests. But it's not odd, unfair, or extreme to ban substances
by vintermann 4y ago
Illegality is not an intrinsic property of anything, so of course that's not what the headline suggests.
But it's not odd, unfair, or extreme to ban substances before they're explicitly known. For specific purposes or more generally.
If I have some novel medical compound, of course I can't just mix it into my cookies. If I come up with some entirely novel gaseous organophosphate thing, not only am I forbidden from releasing it in the subway, but the government is quite justified in asking why the heck I even possess that stuff.
- computerfriend 4y agoThe headline not only suggests it, it explicitly states it.
- vintermann 4y agoIt says it's illegal, but that its illegality is an inherent property of the drug itself, as opposed to a conditional property coming from the laws of Australia, is just a fantastic straw man. It reads to me like OP is trying to suggest he headline is somehow absurd. It is not.
- etherael 4y ago> If I have some novel medical compound, of course I can't just mix it into my cookies. Why of course? What justification leads you to "of course" here. Not saying you are necessarily wrong but doesnt sound like say taking aspirin and adding some vitamins, despite now being a novel medical compound, would make it immediately and obviously illegal, letalone for personal use in cookies or otherwise. Not that the law ever had to or indeed does make sense.
- vintermann 4y agoPerhaps I should specify "cookies you intended to sell, or otherwise serve to people who have no reason to think they would contain anything but ingredients legal as food additives". I hope you agree food additives should not be legal by default just because no one explicitly listed it as illegal.
- etherael 4y agoGot it, that makes a lot more sense.
- esperent 4y ago> I can't just mix it into my cookies > releasing it in the subway Why do you think these are reasons for making a substance illegal? You can buy chlorine bleach legally at any hardware shop, but if you mix it into cookies or make chlorine gas and then poison people, you'll have committed a crime. Likewise, you can buy a huge razor sharp knife in any home goods store. Should these be banned because it's possible to stab people with them?
- vintermann 4y agoIf something has no legal uses to speak of, but has illegal ones - especially, profitable illegal ones - then that's good enough reason to ban it as I see it. And that's definitively where novel analogs of pharmaceuticals, ordered in bulk from dodgy Chinese suppliers, fall.
- ttyprintk 4y agoThis logic makes “date rape” drugs the most dangerous of all. But they’re not treated like that, are they? Possession of such is almost certainly probable cause to commit kidnapping, sexual assault, or conspiracy to lure people into those. Yet people sentenced to life for drug trafficking would have been better off selling the actual assault drug.
- johtso 4y agoI'm not sure if even that's such a straightforward argument to make. I've recently been looking into buying some reagents for fungal microscopy, and supposedly Melzer's reagent is awkward to get hold of (particularly in the USA?) because chloral hydrate is a "date rape drug". Another chemical branded as a date rape drug is GHB, but it is also popular as a recreational drug. Again, not something you can say possession of implies some intention to commit rape.
- arbitrary_name 4y agoI believe GHB is also one of the few known drugs that can treat narcolepsy, and is therefore prescription only in the US.