Should drugs be legalized ?

[Libertarian01]

As far as the regulations on drugs should go, I see two (2) that seem reasonable and create a minimal hardship on the producer of such.

#1) The drug company should be required to tell me everything that is in the pill I am taking;
#2) The drug company should be required to prove objectively, at least to a minimal degree, that the drug can do what they are claiming it can do.

The first protects and informs the consumer, who may have allergies or moral/religious/ethical reasons for not wanting to ingest a product. It also shifts some burden upon the consumer to play an active role in their own health care.

The second is a massive protection against snake oil sellers. If I want to buy a car I can tell as a basic consumer that if the key is turned and the car don't start, it ain't good. However, with a pill the effects could be felt days or even weeks down the road. The consumer has no clue as to how soon the drug will work.

While other basic regulations may be important I see those as the top two (2). The free market can only do so much. Imagine if there were no regulations and someone started selling a product that killed people on a massive level. It's all fine and dandy for their estate to win a civil lawsuit years down the road but that hardly does a damn thing to reverse the damage done to the dead guy. Fear of civil or criminal reprisals is regrettably often not enough to restrain the immoral and unethical from taking advantage of other people. Ergo, in some cases a more proactive approach is required.

All that aside there certainly comes a tipping point with regulations where they impair and/or impede the development of products that could save a significant amount of lives. As a Libertarian I set that bar pretty low regarding how much regulation is too much, but it is still above ground level. The nanny state would set the bar too high imposing more regulations to protect against outliers that can never be accounted for. The rest are caught in the middle hoping that everyone "does the right thing."

I also must admit that I am fairly ignorant of all that is required to go into the development of medication. I believe if I researched it I would find the regulations well intended but too intrusive. That said, we can all wage only so many wars. There is only so much room on our individual plates to work with. Gun control, abortion, government spying, the debt, drug regulations, the environment, climate change, whales, orphans, lost dogs all go on ad infinitum. The drug regulation war isn't one I normally engage in.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

As far as the regulations on drugs should go, I see two (2) that seem reasonable and create a minimal hardship on the producer of such.

#1) The drug company should be required to tell me everything that is in the pill I am taking;
#2) The drug company should be required to prove objectively, at least to a minimal degree, that the drug can do what they are claiming it can do.

Why stop at drugs then? If you're going to require that one product must do what's claimed, there are a lot more kinds of products than drugs.

 

[Thor]

Not until the responsibility of misusing the product and putting other people in danger is in place. Then sure. Kill someone while stoned/drunk/texting = death penalty. Cause a wreck or endanger others = guaranteed jail time.

Before people are made to accept responsibility for their actions, no.

But that's not what adherents of free access to drugs tend to want.

 

[IndyDave1776]

#2) The drug company should be required to prove objectively, at least to a minimal degree, that the drug can do what they are claiming it can do.

The rub is that we are going to prove this objectively to whose standards? Beyond that, who will be overtly or secretly (i.e., bribery) paying those determining what is 'objective'? After all, I use a product better than most antibiotics the doctor will give me which is required by the .gov to have a label declaring:

This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Oh, and the "This statement" referred to is this lofty claim to greatness:

Supports general well-being

I could say that much about laughing at a joke at least once a day and not even have to put a disclaimer on it to appease the feds.

While I agree in principle with that idea, in practice it will be yet another situation in which a person is entitled to all the justice he can afford.

 

[dusty88]

As far as the regulations on drugs should go, I see two (2) that seem reasonable and create a minimal hardship on the producer of such.

#1) The drug company should be required to tell me everything that is in the pill I am taking;

Well fraud should certainly be prosecuted, but if you want to buy something that says "our standard is that this pill contain somewhere between 25-100% ampicillin then you should be free to buy it if you want to.

#2) The drug company should be required to prove objectively, at least to a minimal degree, that the drug can do what they are claiming it can do.

Yes they "should" prove that to your satisfaction before YOU personally decide to buy it. By proving it to the satisfaction of a regulatory agency, what we have is a process that will never be objective. The more favored a company is, the more incentive they have to delay approval of a competitor's product.

Like other agencies, the FDA is a revolving door with industry leaders. IOW, they are "captured".

Such "approvals" can be done via private cooperating agencies. So you as a consumer don't have to understand every thing about every medication. Those who are fraudulent about their ingredients or testing can be prosecuted vigorously (a far more useful job for regulators than deciding on specifics of tests and labels).

The second is a massive protection against snake oil sellers. If I want to buy a car I can tell as a basic consumer that if the key is turned and the car don't start, it ain't good. However, with a pill the effects could be felt days or even weeks down the road. The consumer has no clue as to how soon the drug will work.

I don't have any clue about cars. My mechanical abilities are terrible. But still I can take the choice of paying more for a guarantee, get a mechanic's opinion before I buy a car, etc. Or I can go to an auction where I spend much less and take my chances. Sometimes, freedom of choice actually protects the consumer.

Granted, I don't want to "try" a life-changing medication without understanding it. OTOH, families are suffering and bankrupt because they are prescribed a medication that costs more than their monthly grocery bill.

If granny wants to take something only half as effective that is nearly free, the doctor should be able to tell her about it and she should be able to decide.

While other basic regulations may be important I see those as the top two (2). The free market can only do so much. Imagine if there were no regulations and someone started selling a product that killed people on a massive level. It's all fine and dandy for their estate to win a civil lawsuit years down the road but that hardly does a damn thing to reverse the damage done to the dead guy.

I don't know about "massive" because that would become quickly apparent. But on a moderate level, that happens with approved drugs.

All that aside there certainly comes a tipping point with regulations where they impair and/or impede the development of products that could save a significant amount of lives. As a Libertarian I set that bar pretty low regarding how much regulation is too much, but it is still above ground level. The nanny state would set the bar too high imposing more regulations to protect against outliers that can never be accounted for. The rest are caught in the middle hoping that everyone "does the right thing."

I think your tipping point might not be the same as someone else's. Why not let someone else buy the "mediocre standard" if they wish and you pay more for the "gold standard". ?


Medications should be regulated only to the extent that they harm others or the environment. In that vein, I actually think antibiotics are what we should regulate. We've affected our microorganisms directly. That's just like dumping toxic substances in the water or air.

 

[steveh_131]

While other basic regulations may be important I see those as the top two (2). The free market can only do so much.

dusty made some good points about all of the corruption that takes place when you involve government regulatory agencies, so I won't belabor that point. I will say again that I've worked with the FDA to develop systems to meet their monitoring standards and can tell you with 100% certainty that they are a joke.

That said, I think you underestimate the power of the free market and individual responsibility. Underwriter Laboratories has been providing safety practices for industries for a very, very long time with much greater efficacy than any government agency. Civil lawsuits are the driving force, not government bureaucracy.

 

[voidsherpa]

Not until the responsibility of misusing the product and putting other people in danger is in place. Then sure. Kill someone while stoned/drunk/texting = death penalty. Cause a wreck or endanger others = guaranteed jail time.

Before people are made to accept responsibility for their actions, no.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[dusty88]

Not until the responsibility of misusing the product and putting other people in danger is in place. Then sure. Kill someone while stoned/drunk/texting = death penalty. Cause a wreck or endanger others = guaranteed jail time.

Before people are made to accept responsibility for their actions, no.

But that's not what adherents of free access to drugs tend to want.

why would you treat drugs differently than cell phones or guns?

Some users are responsible enough to stay at home when they drink/smoke.

More importantly, has it helped to make them illegal? It appears to me it's only helped those that profit from the drug war. I think one could argue the violence caused by the black market of drugs is far greater than the damage inflicted by the actual use of drugs.

 

[Thor]

why would you treat drugs differently than cell phones or guns?

What makes you think I would? Nothing in my comment.

 

[Thor]

Some users are responsible enough to stay at home when they drink/smoke.

Good for them. They are not the majority.

 

[steveh_131]

Good for them. They are not the majority.

Source?

 

[steveh_131]

What makes you think I would? Nothing in my comment.

The fact that hurting people through negligence is already punishable, but you're suggesting something even more extreme specific to drugs.

 

[dusty88]

What makes you think I would? Nothing in my comment.

I read your comment to say that drugs should only be legalized if you get the death penalty for accidentally killing someone after using them.

We don't have the death penalty for texting and driving, likely also not for accidental shootings.

So would you have cell phones and guns made illegal until your standard is met?

 

[halfmileharry]

Most drugs are legal now IF you pay the required taxes on them. Prosecute for tax evasion and let the cold hearted IRS make them kick the habit. Drug problems cured.

 

[Thor]

I read your comment to say that drugs should only be legalized if you get the death penalty for accidentally killing someone after using them.

We don't have the death penalty for texting and driving, likely also not for accidental shootings.

So would you have cell phones and guns made illegal until your standard is met?

Here let me help you with that "Kill someone while stoned/drunk/texting = death penalty."

And I didn't say they should be made illegal, I said that people should be made to take responsibility for their actions and be held to the same level of impact they have on others.

So allow me to be obtuse as well...are you saying that everything should be made legal no matter what the impact is on others as long as you get your feel good moment?

 

[steveh_131]

He wasn't being obtuse. It was a valid question.

 

[dusty88]

Here let me help you with that "Kill someone while stoned/drunk/texting = death penalty."

And I didn't say they should be made illegal, I said that people should be made to take responsibility for their actions and be held to the same level of impact they have on others.

So allow me to be obtuse as well...are you saying that everything should be made legal no matter what the impact is on others as long as you get your feel good moment?

I was honestly asking you to clarify your statement. I thought you said that you only agreed with legalizing drugs if..... (said punishment for negligence) and thus I compared it with other things that might contribute to vehicular homicide but, like drugs, don't directly cause homicide.

So not arguing.... just trying to follow your position

 

[poptab]

Here let me help you with that "Kill someone while stoned/drunk/texting = death penalty."

And I didn't say they should be made illegal, I said that people should be made to take responsibility for their actions and be held to the same level of impact they have on others.

So allow me to be obtuse as well...are you saying that everything should be made legal no matter what the impact is on others as long as you get your feel good moment?

I'd bet money he doesn't do drugs.

 

[Thor]

So not arguing.... just trying to follow your position

Yes, that's my position. Too often we rush to the new cool thing with no apparent concern over its impact on the rest of us...who now have our rights and freedoms getting violated. Cell phones should have started out being illegal for drivers to use at any time the vehicle is moving. It is why I included texting and drinking in my original statement.

UAS are a good example. Let's put a hundred thousand in the air before we come up with rules for their use! Why should we limit peoples access to the airspace? At least until an airliner or two come down and a few hundred people die in the flames. Laser pointers? Why not? Point them at pilots trying to land? What's wrong with that? You mean that don't point them into your eye is meant for other people too?

We'd have a lot more neighborhood Gasthaus's if we made the penalties for drunk driving equivalent to the damage done to others. And I do like my adult beverages...just prefer to do my drinking where I'll be for the night as there's nowhere I can walk to. I also don't answer my phone or text while driving. It seems like common sense...but I've found common sense is more rare than ESP, it's the seventh sense, seemingly so rare its a feaking super power.

And this is why we can't have nice things...and why we shouldn't legalize drugs before the responsibility for their misuse is in place. Just because we've made that mistake dozens of times before does not mean we need to make it again.

 

[Thor]

I'd bet money he doesn't do drugs.

Good point. I didn't mean to imply it.