Yes, I'm in favor of prohibiting some substances. And tightly regulating others- that process that you seem to regard as a corrupt feature of government, rather than a process with some bugs. However, I think that civil confiscation of unsafe products is typically a more practical solution than getting the cr…
Yes, I'm in favor of prohibiting some substances. And tightly regulating others- that process that you seem to regard as a corrupt feature of government, rather than a process with some bugs. However, I think that civil confiscation of unsafe products is typically a more practical solution than getting the criminal courts involved.
"Bootleg meth has willing suppliers and willing buyers."
I've already told you twice: amphetamines- including methampetamines- are LEGALLY REGULATED. No one would buy the bootleg garbage if they could get a pure supply. Come on, this is basic. But we're dealing with a medical-legal regime that won't even attempt to experiment with amphetamine maintenance for meth addicts- not even a program like methadone maintenance, where users would show up for a daily dose of oral medication. Many of those folks have undiagnosed ADD (which is a real ailment, fwiw.) But if someone is criminalized prior to diagnosis, they're sunk. They're "meth freaks."
I'd be a lot more dubious about Schedule II amphetamine prescription- something like 13 million Americans have an amphetamine or methylphenidate script- if it was driving large numbers of people on to the street to bang 100mg loads of crystal ten times a day. But it isn't a problem the way over-prescribed Oxy was. Because it isn't the same substance. Dependency and ill health effects from amphetamine pills are a personal liability- the warning signs of overuse need to be heeded. But it isn't a public health menace. Whether over-prescribed or not, people aren't dropping dead left and right from their Adderall prescriptions. There isn't an epidemic of doctor shopping and wholesale diversion of industrial quantities to the street market so that people can gobble/snort/shoot mass quantities of amphetamine pills to cope with an escalating tolerance and an intensifying addiction.
The basis of my drug policy positions is that I follow the evidence.
"Once you've decided that it's GOOD to make certain drugs illegal we are just arguing over what those drugs are and what the regulations should be."
Well, yeah. But unlike myself, you've just spent half of your post content arguing that regulatory controls are corrupt and ineffective, and that the only answer should be "simple laws, with no loopholes" to work as blanket prohibitions over a wide array of substances, including marijuana, a nontoxic herb that's less poisonous than many of the products in stock on a kitchen spice rack.
Which is to say, you're all over the place on this.
So am I- but I'm basing the differences in my policies on rational assessment of harm to public health and safety. Whereas you're still thrashing around like the White Queen from Alice In Wonderland.
"So you're a PROHIBITIONIST."
Yes, I'm in favor of prohibiting some substances. And tightly regulating others- that process that you seem to regard as a corrupt feature of government, rather than a process with some bugs. However, I think that civil confiscation of unsafe products is typically a more practical solution than getting the criminal courts involved.
"Bootleg meth has willing suppliers and willing buyers."
I've already told you twice: amphetamines- including methampetamines- are LEGALLY REGULATED. No one would buy the bootleg garbage if they could get a pure supply. Come on, this is basic. But we're dealing with a medical-legal regime that won't even attempt to experiment with amphetamine maintenance for meth addicts- not even a program like methadone maintenance, where users would show up for a daily dose of oral medication. Many of those folks have undiagnosed ADD (which is a real ailment, fwiw.) But if someone is criminalized prior to diagnosis, they're sunk. They're "meth freaks."
I'd be a lot more dubious about Schedule II amphetamine prescription- something like 13 million Americans have an amphetamine or methylphenidate script- if it was driving large numbers of people on to the street to bang 100mg loads of crystal ten times a day. But it isn't a problem the way over-prescribed Oxy was. Because it isn't the same substance. Dependency and ill health effects from amphetamine pills are a personal liability- the warning signs of overuse need to be heeded. But it isn't a public health menace. Whether over-prescribed or not, people aren't dropping dead left and right from their Adderall prescriptions. There isn't an epidemic of doctor shopping and wholesale diversion of industrial quantities to the street market so that people can gobble/snort/shoot mass quantities of amphetamine pills to cope with an escalating tolerance and an intensifying addiction.
The basis of my drug policy positions is that I follow the evidence.
"Once you've decided that it's GOOD to make certain drugs illegal we are just arguing over what those drugs are and what the regulations should be."
Well, yeah. But unlike myself, you've just spent half of your post content arguing that regulatory controls are corrupt and ineffective, and that the only answer should be "simple laws, with no loopholes" to work as blanket prohibitions over a wide array of substances, including marijuana, a nontoxic herb that's less poisonous than many of the products in stock on a kitchen spice rack.
Which is to say, you're all over the place on this.
So am I- but I'm basing the differences in my policies on rational assessment of harm to public health and safety. Whereas you're still thrashing around like the White Queen from Alice In Wonderland.