3 ms·

I don't agree with your proposed solution (make all drugs legal), but I do think that the pharma industry in the US basically gets to socialise their losses whi

by ljm 3y ago

I don't agree with your proposed solution (make all drugs legal), but I do think that the pharma industry in the US basically gets to socialise their losses while privatising the gains. The Sackler family's opioids, for example, have caused untold damage, and they made billions from it. They were able to offset the cost of all of that onto the society.

x86x87 3y ago
The "make all drugs legal" was meant as a way of saying that we should not punish people that have an addiction. I was not advocating giving highly addictive hard drugs out without prescription.
- lazide 3y ago
  Aren’t these two stances mutually exclusive? How do you propose not punishing people with addictions while somehow never giving out hard drugs without a prescription - since addictions are by their definition destructive and Dr’s shouldn’t be giving prescriptions for things that are known to cause problems for someone?
  - x86x87 3y ago
    Are they? You don't prosecute anyone. You get them help.
    - efnx 3y ago
      I think the term you’re looking for is “decriminalisation”, which is different than “legalisation”.
    - lazide 3y ago
      So then it’s not actually illegal to do any of these things?
- reactordev 3y ago
  Prescriptions exist to allow a non-doctor access to drug classified by the FDA/FHA as being “dangerous”. I agree that we should make all drugs legal in the sense that it’s a mental health problem but I’m not for allowing everyone access to fentanyl.