14 ms·
Drug Companies Can Legally Start Selling Cocaine, Heroin, and MDMA
- Overtonwindow 4y agoCANADIAN companies. "A Canadian weed company and a psychedelics company have received government licenses to make and distribute the drugs under certain circumstances."
- justinclift 4y ago“They are only permitted for sale to other licence holders who have cocaine listed on their licence, pharmacists, practitioners, hospitals, or the holder of a section 56(1) exemption for research purposes,” the agency said. Wonder if "research tourism" is expected to become a thing? ;)
- Connor_Creegan 4y agoYou darn well can bet it is already.
- junon 4y agoThat's basically how California marijuana licenses were handed out before it was legalized.
- coin 4y agoIn the US MDMA started off as a legal drug until the mid 80s when the DEA made it illegal
- ufmace 4y agoMan, I remember the time when we had to pass a constitutional amendment to make a substance illegal. Now a government agency can just declare substances illegal without needing to justify it to anybody.
- nemo44x 4y agoIt’s amazing. The regime loves all the agencies/departments though as it maintains power in the event the people elect someone that would give democracy back to the people. These agencies just have carte-blanche to pass laws based on whatever whim they might have. They set limits on things and decide what and how to regulate.
- mLuby 4y agoOne thing I love about this site is how people from all walks of life contribute. Congratulations on reaching your hundredth birthday.
- ddulaney 4y agoBecause they were born before 1970, which was when the Controlled Substances Act allowed the executive branch to make certain drugs illegal :)
- spywaregorilla 4y agoThe controlled substances act is not a constitutional amendment.
- ddulaney 4y agoBefore the CSA, the most notable legal instrument for banning substances was the constitutional amendment. After the CSA, the most notable legal instrument for banning constitutional substances was an administrative decision.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoThat's a pretty willfully naive answer though. The fact that the CSA was passable at all is indicative that something had changed. Because if the legislative branch can grant the executive branch the right to make drugs illegal, the legislative branch must have had that ability to do so without a constitutional amendment on its own already. The question is what changed that made the CSA possible? The correct answer is that in the 30s the courts started taking the position that the federal government could do things that weren't explicitly granted as within their powers, and most types of trade were now within "interstate commerce" It's also generally just a wrong answer that misses big things like the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act in the 30s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosmetic_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosmet...
- Overtonwindow 4y agoThe DEA has to justify its existence somehow...
- it_citizen 4y agoThe DEA is not just chasing street drug dealers. They also went after US companies that helped manufacturing the opioid crisis with oxycontin and fentanyl and tried to shut them down. Unfortunately, big pharma talked to their congressmen buddies to limit the action of the DEA. (see Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act)
- garyfirestorm 4y agoSo you’re saying they’re just chasing street drug dealers
- vuln 4y ago> Unfortunately, big pharma talked to their congressmen buddies to limit the action of the DEA. (see Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act) Yet again with enough _protection money_ the feds go after the low hanging fruit.
- jameshart 4y agoThat’s how drug classification works - molecules don’t start off as banned.
- cassianoleal 4y agoActually... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-highs-what-will-be-banned-and-what-are-the-punishments-10283560.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-highs-...
- jameshart 4y agoUnstated - in countries with working judicial review systems. The UK legal highs laws were malformed from the start.
- armeehn 4y agoOne of them had to retract their statement after it caught the attention of the province’s prime minister as well as the federal prime minister. link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justin-trudeau-on-b-c-firm-s-cocaine-claim-1.6767257 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justin-trude...
- randlet 4y agoMinor correction, provinces don't have prime minister's they have premier's.
- j0hnd 4y agoThe story evolved later that day https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justin-trudeau-on-b-c-firm-s-cocaine-claim-1.6767257 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justin-trude...
- petesergeant 4y agoAny luck they'll create something like a Managed Alcohol Program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_alcohol_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_alcohol_program Unclear what benefit there is to stopping people addicted to opiates getting those opiates cleanly and cheaply.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago> Unclear what benefit there is to stopping people addicted to opiates getting those opiates cleanly and cheaply. “Addicted to opiates” is a big spectrum. Someone dependent on a mild recreational dose can possibly continue like that for a long time if, and only if, they don’t try to escalate their dose. The issue is that the recreational value wears off quickly as tolerance sets in, which means they’re only taking the opiate to avoid withdrawals at that point. So addicts start increasing their dose, or they try to play games where they go into withdrawal for a while so they can get a small “high” when they redose. This is why addicts are transitioned to maintenance therapy on maintenance-specific medications. Prolonged opioid use can also worsen pain due to counter-regulation in certain systems, which creates further desire to increase doses over the very long term. Vicious cycle. For opiate users taking moderate to high doses, it’s not so simple. These will take a toll over time and the users simply can’t function at their jobs, their personal lives, or even in taking care of their own health. They often go through a period of illusion where they feel like they can be functional addicts forever and may fool friends, family, and coworkers for some time. However, the high doses will destroy their ability to function over time. The idea that opioid abusers can be fine if they just have a perpetual clean supply doesn’t really pan out. Even chronic pain patients on purely therapeutic regimens with zero recreational value (post tolerance) have a litany of problems over the long term.
- withinboredom 4y agoI've been in countries where you can pick up opiate-laced cough syrup without a prescription. It was nice when you got a ridiculous cough and didn't want to (wait for) get an appointment just to get a cough syrup you knew you obviously needed. I don't see the point in gate-keeping drugs. Let darwinism run its course.
- colechristensen 4y agoIs this really news? There have always been a couple of companies given license to produce such things for various narrow purposes. Cocaine is used as an anesthetic in some nasal and eye surgeries for example. Research and testing purposes also need clean standards to use for comparison.
- stevehiehn 4y agoGood grief, the media is really running with this lol. "scientific and medical purposes only"
- HlessClaudesman 4y agoDon't let the truth stand in the way of a good headline.
- swagasaurus-rex 4y agooxycotin, which is opium, should only be used for medical purposes. Yet somehow pharmaceuticals got doctors to prescribe until we have an opioid crisis in the US.
- kevviiinn 4y agoOxycontin is not opium, it is a semisynthetic opioid that is not found in opium. It is a modified version of codeine
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Scoundreller 4y agoOddly, this may create problems for end-users that are currently able to acquire these substances through a prescription through the "Special Access Program", which grants the ability to import drugs not available in Canada, which means your choice of suppliers. If there is a domestic licensed supplier, and only one, Health Canada will likely force you to go through them and pay whatever they ask.
- recuter 4y agoWhen I was in Peru coca tea was available everywhere for literally pennies. It is legal in most of South America. It doesn't even get you high it just sort of helps with elevation sickness. This seems to upset US politicians from time to time and cause diplomatic spats, they were adamant against the sale of it despite it being traditional in that part of the world. Punitive about it. Now it is legal in Canada and not a peep. Tres Bizarre.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThere’s a pretty vast gap between coca tea and refined cocaine, isn’t there?
- blululu 4y agoSort of. It's analogous to Beer vs Whiskey: Same psychoactive, but one substance has been chemically concentrated. Both are bad for you but one can be consumed in much lower quantities and concentrations so the health risks are a bit attenuated. Drinking a beer a lunch on a Friday is generally acceptable, but whisky at lunch any day would raise some eyebrows. That said if you start drinking 5 beers a night every night your friends and family might intervene.
- kortilla 4y agoNot really analogous. A whiskey beverage is usually served at one alcohol unit of strength and has the same alcohol as a beer. In fact, someone who has a whiskey neat for lunch is likely going to get less alcohol than someone who has a pint from a microbrew. 16 ounces at 10% abv vs 1.5 ounces at 40%.
- User23 4y ago> Not really analogous. A whiskey beverage is usually served at one alcohol unit of strength and has the same alcohol as a beer. The only place I’ve ever gone to a bar where this is actually true is in Utah. Not to mention with the rise of craft beer even a beer isn’t a standard drink often as not.
- ksniwmidjd 4y ago[dead]
- rib3ye 4y agoGood thing we don't allow this in the US! Wait a sec... https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/cerillian/m009 https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/cerillian/m009
- thinkingkong 4y agoThe provincial health care system in British Columbia already sources drugs like mdma, heroin, and cocaine. This is part of the “safe supply” program which is in a weird legal gray area. As far as Im aware, the current suppliers of safe supply narcotics are drug dealers. So this is a much better alternative.
- User23 4y agoThere was a time not so long ago when you could buy a pint of whisky, a couple vials of heroin and cocaine, and a sandwich all at your local Rexall.
- ElfinTrousers 4y agoEven if I could do that today, I wouldn't. Those sandwiches always look suspect.
- Waterluvian 4y ago> But it’s not clear under what circumstances the companies will be able to sell the drugs Only because your article wouldn’t have any bite if you told the truth. It is clear. Health Canada clarified already: it’s for research and prescribed use in rather limited cases. The hack author wants you to feel a narrative that they’re going to just start selling cocaine to the public. > In a statement to VICE News, Health Canada said Adastra is licensed to produce the drugs for scientific and medical purposes but cannot sell products to the general public. Oh, so you do know. Rendering your earlier sentence wrong. In the same article.
- pphysch 4y agoVICE is a tabloid masquerading as an investigative journalism outlet
- ruthie_cohen 4y agoThis isn’t something unique to VICE, the vast majority of MSM utilise click-bait headlines to drive engagement. In defence of VICE, their video arm is still one of the best outlets for drug related content. Their print arm, I could take it or leave it.
- Heston 4y agoThey were already legal drug dealers, what's the difference?
- hulitu 4y ago> Drug Companies Can Legally Start Selling Cocaine, Heroin, and MDMA So they evolved from organized crime to drug dealers.