"Drug wars are allowing perscription and other drugs into our society and creating a market for them. If the Government would focus more on drug rehabilition then there wouldn't be a buisness to provide these horrible drugs that depreciate our society."

First of all, it's not the "drug wars" that are creating the market for drugs. They're drugs. They make you feel good. They're addictive. They practically sell themselves. The market will always exist. Also, we can't blame the drug wars for allowing prescription drugs to be on the market. That, my friend, is another look at how industry is controlling the government. These prescription drugs are owned and distributed by corporations. For example: the pharmaceutical company known as Roxane Laboratories manufactures a shopping list of opiates. I just spent some time browsing their "product page" on their website. Oxycodone, Hydromorphone (Dilaudid), Morphine Sulphate, Hydrocodone. Almost any opiate that you could possibly want (save heroin) can be found here. However, just like heroin, all of these chemicals are synthesized from morphine, which is extracted from opium. So, opium is the root of all opiates. It is safe to say that Roxane Labs keeps many addicts in a good supply of the drugs that they need. Legally. 

On top of this, Roxane Labs also produces and distributes drugs such as Methadone and Suboxone. These are the chemicals used to TREAT OPIATE ADDICTION. They've really got quite a scheme going on here. What product could be more profitable for a corporation than the relatives of heroin? But they don't just offer the fix, they offer the cure! It's genius. The "cure", of course, is in the form of more pills (more sales). They get you off of opiates and onto something else. This is supposed to be some sort of improvement, but let's be honest, they're just trying to keep the cash a-flowing.

My point is: It's not the smugglers and peddlers that we need to worry about. It's the companies that, with the protection of our government, are working right under our noses to produce and distribute drug after new drug. The government knows that this is going on. They are not waging a "drug war" against Roxane Labs. In fact, they're more likely waging a drug war to protect companies like Roxane Labs. The less heroin on the streets, the more morphine and oxycodone these corporations will sell. Also, it is clear that a "focus on drug rehabilitation" does nothing to destroy the "business that provides these horrible drugs". In fact, rehabilitation methods support the business by offering "pharmaceutical alternatives". -Adam

Interesting point that you bring up about the drug companies adding to the addiction, definitely a problem, but don't forget that people who live with chronic pain need these drugs to survive.  The war on prescriptive pain killers makes unintended victims. -April

Oh, I'm not calling for a "war" on prescription painkillers. Not by any means. I think that all drugs should be legal. If a person wants to abuse drugs they should have the right. I'm just exposing the genius behind our legal drug market and the fact that most of the opiate addiction that we see nowadays is due to prescription drugs rather than illegal drugs. When a person buys opiates from these companies, they can rest assured that what they are getting is exactly what they paid for. Buying heroin on the streets certainly doesn't offer this kind of security. The brown powder could be anything! Also, because the same companies offer the opiate "treatment" it becomes clear that a government focus on rehabilitation will not help bring down the business. Rehabilitation is a part of the business.

Also, I'm questioning the ridiculousness of condemning a substance like heroin or opium when we allow drugs like morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and fentanyl to be used for medical purposes. They're variations of the same thing!  -Adam

They are variations. Of course, they are suppossed to be altered to increase the medical effectiveness and decrease the negative side effects. Straight opium doesn't have a lot of medical value.

I have thought about the idea of drug use as personal liberty (something that l value greatly) and it leaves me quite conflicted. I have seen the first hand effects of drug abuse, but making them illegal did not stop it. However, we do regulate industry in that products deemed dangerous are taken off the market. Not a day goes by whithout some lawyer or another on tv advertising products people have been hurt by and offering their services to get some sort of monetery reward for being hurt. Why should we require a dangerous baby crib to be taken off the market and then allow crack cocaine to be distrubted? -April

I have also experienced, first hand, the effects of opiate abuse and addiction. I can assure you that "straight" opium has just as much medical value as its derivatives, despite what the government may say. So does heroin. All of these substances come from the same plant. They produce extremely similar effects. When an addict is "dope sick" and can't get any heroin, any other opiate (including smoking opium) will cure the sickness. We can't arrest one person for using heroin or smoking opium while helping another procure oxycodone anymore than we can "require a dangerous baby crib to be taken off the market and then allow crack cocaine to be distributed." It's hypocritical.

"We can't allow you to smoke that, sir! We understand that smoking the black substance that is naturally produced in the poppy plant helps your chronic pain, but it's illegal! Here, here, take this. This will also help your pain and it's perfectly legal." He hands over a little blue pill.

"Oh yeah? This tiny thing? What is it, exactly?"

"That tiny thing, sir, is an extremely powerful, extremely concentrated derivative of a certain black substance that is naturally produced in the poppy plant! Watch it though, it'll kill you much easier than that stuff you were smoking!"

"I can assure you that "straight" opium has just as much medical value as its derivatives, despite what the government may say." What? No links? That's so un-Adam like! I want to see some research backing that up. (No smart-mouth tone intended!)

I don't need to research this. I have ingested almost every opiate known to man, including opium. In the right doses, and taken the right way, they all do basically the same thing. I also don't see how any research besides simply trying them could tell anyone much about the effects of these substances (or any substance, for that matter). Yes, I am suggesting experimentation. 

Except that anecdotal evidence in the are a drug research doesn't work. Drug research is based on how a substance effects the majority of users. If we went with my experience with Nyquil alone, the warning label should read that it may keep you up for days and not that it will put you to sleep. That's not true for the overwhelming majority of consumers. Should they not be forwarned of the most probable side effect?

I appreciate your bold and honest statement regarding experimentation and I'm glad it has worked out for you thus far; however, it can have some pretty dire consequences.  Research says cyanide will kill you - think I'll just believe the research and not experiment with that one.

Research says a lot of things. We never really know until we try. Every then, I guess we don't really know. We're not talking about cyanide, we're talking about opiates. I never said experimentation "worked out for me". I never said that it didn't. I am no stranger to the "dire consequences". I just believe that it's difficult to have an educated discussion on the effects of any substance without first experiencing these effects. Obviously there are some exceptions...like cyanide, since we can't come back and discuss the effects of death. That effect is best left to hypothesis. But we CAN experience the effects of opiates and come back to discuss them. 

Question: They are called controlled substance because the distribution and use is supposed to be controlled. Is there no difference, in your opinion, between controlled distribution as a treatment for illness and open distribution to whomever for whatever?

I don't think that any person or group of people have the right to "control" any substance. Who makes these decisions? 

What about food? The FDA is charged with keeping our food safe. Is that any different or would you rather see them not exist as well?

Again, I don't think that any substance should be considered illegal to possess or ingest. We should be given warnings along with all the supporting evidence. The rest should be left up to the public.

Food is a good point though...I didn't think of how similar the "control" of food and drugs are. I'll have to dance around with that one for a while.

We may have strayed from our original argument...(or maybe not)

Let's take a step back from this argument and bring it back around to the original rough draft we are commenting on. 

Then, we forge ahead!

(or should we just continue as we have been?)

I just recently did a paper on this argument, titled Aid or Abuse? 

I have background with users, dealers, and experimentation myself.

If any comments or arguments to this paper, don't hesitate to speak.

-Sheena

when you converge this discussion with the afghanistan debate on another page, this is what emerges!  

BACK TO ROUGH DRAFT

P.S.  I have a lot more to say about this paper. I may continue to comment in this form, or I may just copy&paste the entire paper onto a new page and tear it apart. Stay tuned! -Adam

What Portugal is doing is interesting. It has some components of efforts by other nations, but they did it a little different - trying to affect the demand instead of the supply. Check out this article. -April