3 ms·
It seems weird how you stress the profitability aspect in your two previous comments. As if something that is profitable increases its illegality - whereas when
by data_maan 4y ago
It seems weird how you stress the profitability aspect in your two previous comments. As if something that is profitable increases its illegality - whereas when something is legal but really unhealthy, like nicotine, it can be as profitable as you want. Double standards, where being legal takes precedent over health.
> then you can seek permission to do that in an organised manner.
And how do you think that people suffering from <migraine> (insert illness of choice) will go about that?
Wait a few years until a regulatory body approves their case, all while suffering from <migraine>? What if the regulatory body desidea that only people with degrees in chemistry (but not molecular biology) are allowed to do such research?
Such a bureaucratic processes are textbook examples really bad policy that pushes people to black markets. But certain northern European countries just love that approach, I know.
- moe091 4y agowell said. To add a less convincing, but imo just as important point: It's insane to think that an individual should need to justify their use to the government before ingesting a substance for medical purposes(or any purpose, for that matter) just because it has psychoactive properties, which we've decided is an inherently bad thing for some reason
- vintermann 4y agoThere's a reason I keep harping on the profit motive. Such personal decisions aren't made in a vacuum. Should people be allowed to try cyanide-containing apricot kernels to treat their cancers too? Maybe? But don't you agree then that we should at least do something about those who make tons of money on such unproven cures, and spend a good chunk on it too convince more desperate people to give it a try?
- data_maan 4y ago> unproven cures Unproven, or disproven? I think we're one the same page when it comes to the government informing people of what is state of the art in research is, what is unkown, and what is bogus and disproven - but not when it comes to restricting access to people to (unproven) cures that might work for them. There are a number of drugs whose highly beneficial side effects were only discovered after people took them for other reasons.
- vintermann 4y ago> whereas when something is legal but really unhealthy, like nicotine, it can be as profitable as you want. I have never said that. Were it up to me, we would do our damndest to eliminate the profit motive in the production of those drugs also, like alcohol and tobacco, which for cultural reasons it's not practical to just ban. I don't think the scientific method pushes people to black markets. I understand the "do something!!" impulse on behalf of people who suffer from things like migraines, but these people are especially important to protect from people with a profit motive hawking miracle cures. Why would people who profit from life-wrecking recreational drugs be any less cynical than apricot-kernel cancer cure profiteers? I can understand that desperate people fall for such people's PR and want to try anything, but I will not let the cynical profiteers weaponize those desperate people to bypass the scientific standards for approving potentially dangerous drugs.