Medical Doctors / General Practitioners

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

And if that drug turns the recipient into a raving, homicidal berserker who then chops off the head of some random person, oh say, Tim Moen, what then? Civilization imposes constraints on all its members. That's why it works. If you don't like it, there are a few empty caves left for occupancy in the World.

Emotive and wrong.

Of course, some people will go crazy on drugs, just as some people drive cars while pissed and kill other people. Do we ban alcohol because of drunk drivers?

The drug legality question needs to be looked at objectively and societally; one of the biggest drivers of decriminalisation ought to be the crushing of the real criminal element: drug dealers who get fat on others' addictions.

How many drug-crazed murders are there against the number of murders due to drug-dealer warfare?

How much police time is wasted criminalising drug-takers who have never and will never perpetrate any other crime?

How much more effective would police forces be if they could utilise the time in other areas?

Raising drug-crazed crims as a reason for continuing criminal sanction for drug use is pretty weak. There is no evidence at all to suggest that free availability of drugs leads to more crime of any kind.

[Richard Masters]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

There is no evidence at all to suggest that free availability of drugs leads to more crime of any kind.

Is it possible even, that some or many prescription-drug related deaths are the result of "patients" lying to their doctors to get high legally?

If so, that would be another argument in your favor.

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Emotive and wrong.

Of course, some people will go crazy on drugs, just as some people drive cars while pissed and kill other people. Do we ban alcohol because of drunk drivers?

The drug legality question needs to be looked at objectively and societally; one of the biggest drivers of decriminalisation ought to be the crushing of the real criminal element: drug dealers who get fat on others' addictions.

How many drug-crazed murders are there against the number of murders due to drug-dealer warfare?

How much police time is wasted criminalising drug-takers who have never and will never perpetrate any other crime?

How much more effective would police forces be if they could utilise the time in other areas?

Raising drug-crazed crims as a reason for continuing criminal sanction for drug use is pretty weak. There is no evidence at all to suggest that free availability of drugs leads to more crime of any kind.

So are you suggesting by free availability of drugs that they be able to be sold freely or that they be given away for free? Will a company be able to fire employees based on drug use? If an addict cannot afford drugs, and can't get a job because he or she can't pass a drug test, do you think there is a chance that he or she may engage in other illegal activities to feed the addiction? That they might spend the rent money on drugs rather than their kids? That they might have trouble making sure their kids get to school?

Sorry, I'm willing to say that prostitution should be legalized, and marijuana, but I draw the line at addictive drugs. Is there any meaning to "personal choice" when dealing with an addictive substance?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Gee this post seemed to have hit a few nerves.

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

And if that drug turns the recipient into a raving, homicidal berserker who then chops off the head of some random person, oh say, Tim Moen, what then? Civilization imposes constraints on all its members. That's why it works. If you don't like it, there are a few empty caves left for occupancy in the World.

See its says "IF". It was a response to Mister Moen who wants all drugs to be available to anyone.

In the real world there are drugs that can have such a result on some people. These drugs are only given by doctors under prescription and their effects monitored.

The system we have of doctors' prescribing and monitoring is not perfect but the suggestion that we should all be allowed to self-medicate is foolish because of contra-indications that have to be professionally evaluated.

Drugs do move from prescription to over-the-counter. This is after they have been in use for years and have been shown to be safe to use.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by gdnp

So are you suggesting by free availability of drugs that they be able to be sold freely or that they be given away for free?

Obviously freely available. Legalised and controlled like booze would be AOK by me.

Originally Posted by gdnp

Will a company be able to fire employees based on drug use?

Obviously. Just in the same way that firms have rules about not being drunk at work, they're quite entitled to have rules to ensure people aren't wasted at work.

I find it odd that someone would raise the subject since it's so obvious.

Originally Posted by gdnp

If an addict cannot afford drugs, and can't get a job because he or she can't pass a drug test, do you think there is a chance that he or she may engage in other illegal activities to feed the addiction? That they might spend the rent money on drugs rather than their kids? That they might have trouble making sure their kids get to school?

Swap "alcohol" for "drugs" and I think you'll get the idea.

Originally Posted by gdnp

Sorry, I'm willing to say that prostitution should be legalized, and marijuana, but I draw the line at addictive drugs. Is there any meaning to "personal choice" when dealing with an addictive substance?

Do you think alcohol should be banned?

There are a hell of a lot of alcoholics in the world and alcohol is highly addictive.

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Obviously. Just in the same way that firms have rules about not being drunk at work, they're quite entitled to have rules to ensure people aren't wasted at work.

I find it odd that someone would raise the subject since it's so obvious.

Well, not so obvious. How long does a urine test for cocaine stay positive? It is not so easy to tell whether someone is currently under the influence of heroin or cocaine or whether someone took it last weekend. As long as they are illegal, you can fire someone for a positive test. If they were legalized, we would have to determine what the "legal limit" for heroin, LSD, or cocaine is. Unfortunately, there is no "breathalyzer" for these drugs: we'd have to be doing blood tests. So someone pulled over for "driving under the influence" could end up testing positive for heroin, cocaine, LSD, and valium and get off because they are under the "legal limit", despite the fact that the response to these drugs varies greatly depending on your level of dependence. LSD is active in tiny concentrations and very hard to detect.

Nope, not so obvious how we could make all drugs legal and yet allow companies to ensure that their employees are not "wasted at work".

[Richard Masters]

Originally Posted by gdnp

It is not so easy to tell whether someone is currently under the influence of heroin or cocaine or whether someone took it last weekend.

If you can't tell the difference at work, then what difference does it make at work?

Quote:

As long as they are illegal, you can fire someone for a positive test. If they were legalized, we would have to determine what the "legal limit" for heroin, LSD, or cocaine is.

You wouldn't. You should be allowed to fire people who stayed within legal recreational drug limits; just like you could fire someone who is as productive as a drunk at work.

Quote:

Unfortunately, there is no "breathalyzer" for these drugs: we'd have to be doing blood tests. So someone pulled over for "driving under the influence" could end up testing positive for heroin, cocaine, LSD, and valium and get off because they are under the "legal limit", despite the fact that the response to these drugs varies greatly depending on your level of dependence. LSD is active in tiny concentrations and very hard to detect.

Shouldn't matter, if you are driving recklessly.

Quote:

Nope, not so obvious how we could make all drugs legal and yet allow companies to ensure that their employees are not "wasted at work".

Sounds like you are making it harder than it needs to be for the sake of argument.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by gdnp

Well, not so obvious. How long does a urine test for cocaine stay positive?

Depends on the amount of use, but around 4 days.

Originally Posted by gdnp

It is not so easy to tell whether someone is currently under the influence of heroin or cocaine or whether someone took it last weekend. As long as they are illegal, you can fire someone for a positive test. If they were legalized, we would have to determine what the "legal limit" for heroin, LSD, or cocaine is.

In terms of work, that's easily solved by drug-testing on Monday mornings. How many heroin junkies manage to work a 40-hour week is unknown, but I'd expect it to be a very, very small number.

Originally Posted by gdnp

Unfortunately, there is no "breathalyzer" for these drugs: we'd have to be doing blood tests. So someone pulled over for "driving under the influence" could end up testing positive for heroin, cocaine, LSD, and valium and get off because they are under the "legal limit", despite the fact that the response to these drugs varies greatly depending on your level of dependence. LSD is active in tiny concentrations and very hard to detect.

How would this change from what exists now? People drive under the influence of drugs all the time. Are you saying there will be more, or that people will be more likely to drive? I can't see why the usual sobriety test and a blood sample would be an issue. As to legal driving limits, they would be zero. If you are caught driving with heroin in the blood, goodbye licence. Given that little action happens in this regard now, it might provide an impetus to develop tests.

I doubt anyone under the influence of LSD would be able to start a car, let alone drive one.

And what regulations currently exist for people driving on prescription drugs which affect driving ability? Diazepam will be a good example, given that millions of people are taking it.

Originally Posted by gdnp

Nope, not so obvious how we could make all drugs legal and yet allow companies to ensure that their employees are not "wasted at work".

Same way they do now.

[Neally]

Quote:

As long as they are illegal, you can fire someone for a positive test. If they were legalized, we would have to determine what the "legal limit" for heroin, LSD, or cocaine is.

Why? An employer could set whatever drug policy they want. Zero tolerance, daily testing or never testing.

[Tim Moen]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Gee this post seemed to have hit a few nerves.



See its says "IF". It was a response to Mister Moen who wants all drugs to be available to anyone.

In the real world there are drugs that can have such a result on some people. These drugs are only given by doctors under prescription and their effects monitored.

The system we have of doctors' prescribing and monitoring is not perfect but the suggestion that we should all be allowed to self-medicate is foolish because of contra-indications that have to be professionally evaluated.

Drugs do move from prescription to over-the-counter. This is after they have been in use for years and have been shown to be safe to use.

Hi Gord. I think most people who ingest things that aren't good for them; trans-fats, alcohol, caffeine etc. understand that there are risks associated with ingesting them. Gasoline isn't a prescribed substance and I could ingest that if I wanted... but I don't. Most people would probably consult a physician or someone with some expertise in the risk/benefit of an unfamiliar substance before ingesting it. You seem to be implying that most people are foolish, which, I think is not the case. I happen to have a knowledge of many pharmaceuticals (I'm a paramedic), I would feel comfortable self-medicating, others may not. Who am I to decide what another person should do?