|
MDMA is approaching FDA drug approval process (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| What's funny about this is that this is exactly what MDMA was used for until it was outlawed in the US. |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| Legalize weed first... Everything else can wait. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What's funny about this is that this is exactly what MDMA was used for until it was outlawed in the US. |
this.
e-tards ruined it before, and they'll do it again.
edit: HOWEVER, IF (and it's a gigantic "if") the government finds a way to manufacture, distribute, tax, and make a load of money off it, it'll be legal in a WEEK. (think tobacco)
it's just the process of getting the "chemist next door" to stop producing it that's really preventing this from becoming even somewhat legal. |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Eco
Legalize weed first... Everything else can wait. |
But then people might drive while stoned! Children will be high out of their minds all of the time, teenage pregnancy will skyrocket, nobody will vote, and the price of pizza delivery will rise tenfold due to excessive demand. Ohhhhhh, the humanity! |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
edit: HOWEVER, IF (and it's a gigantic "if") the government finds a way to manufacture, distribute, tax, and make a load of money off it, it'll be legal in a WEEK. (think tobacco)
|
Actually, Big Tobacco is the biggest anti-drug lobby in the US. They don't want the competition. |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
edit: HOWEVER, IF (and it's a gigantic "if") the government finds a way to manufacture, distribute, tax, and make a load of money off it, it'll be legal in a WEEK. (think tobacco)
it's just the process of getting the "chemist next door" to stop producing it that's really preventing this from becoming even somewhat legal. |
I don't agree. Safety would actually be a pretty huge issue, especially with any new drug and especially one with such a recreational stigma. Alcohol and tobacco are indeed quite dangerous substances, but have such a long legacy in our culture, to outlaw them merely out of the danger they pose would most certainly alienate some of the very lawmakers' habits, themselves.
And even if it were approved by the FDA in some sense, it would be script only, which means it would still be illegal unless you caught a bad case of the PTSS.
And I don't really see how private [illegal] drug manufacturers directly keep something from being legalized... If a substance were legalized, these chemists would be basically out of business, save for the niche catering to a market for higher potency. Or did you mean it's the fact that amphetamine producers keep these sorts of things illegal due to the criminal stigma attached to not only the act, but the drug itself? |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
| I dont see how E can heal people with PTSD. I was going through that at one point and im pretty sure E would have just made me trip out even more. Can't say for sure but this doesnt change anything for anyone here. I also remember reading an article on how MDMA was found to fight lymphoma cancers back when I had Non-Hodgkin's. That seems more useful to me except a tad fuked since E and Chemo would not mix well. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
And I don't really see how private [illegal] drug manufacturers directly keep something from being legalized... If a substance were legalized, these chemists would be basically out of business, save for the niche catering to a market for higher potency. Or did you mean it's the fact that amphetamine producers keep these sorts of things illegal due to the criminal stigma attached to not only the act, but the drug itself? |
put it this way.
if you could drive a couple of neighborhoods over to Jose's house and a get a pack of smokes for 2 dollars that he naturally grew himself. or go to the convenience store and get the same for $7. what would be your choice.
you were right on the fact that alcohol and tobacco has established themselves in our society. for a very good reason - they were there from the beginning. tobacco manufacture and alcohol (in substitute of unavailable clean water) have somewhat engrained (pun intended) themselves into our culture (also corn, but that's another story).
i think it tooks some centuries to eradicate illegal tobacco farming (through a bunch of rules and laws, punishments) and also illegal alcohol trafficking (same concept). the only reason why the prohibition didn't last is because the government saw the "gangsters" make a killing of bootlegging alcohol.
to conclude: i think you got it all wrong. the government could care less about our health and the implications of making something legal or illegal. in the end it all comes down to money, the control of it, and if there's any to be made by making something legal.
edit: furthermore, my thought are not altogether this morning. i think when i have a clearer mindset i'll be able to express myself better. i just hope i've gotten the concept across clearly enough to understand my point of view. i'm not saying i'm right, or anyone is for that matter. what the do we know? |
|
|
| Aortik |
I don't disagree with your cynicism one bit. I wasn't trying to say that any government is truly concerned with the health of the individual, but quality control is an issue as it lends itself to liability in a civic sense and so far as insurance is concerned. Were the FDA to approve of a particular chemical for mass production, pharmeceutical corporations would be the ones to front the production costs and if a substance poses harm, they must be prepared for repercussions. Of course all they want to do is make money, but the profit must exceed the costs or else it's a piss-poor decision.
Private chemists however, do not have that liability. You get bad from someone, you're not going to sue them. :stongue: It's the same issue now, ecstasy is often laced with meth and other dubious chems - there's little to no quality control. Now I'm not saying Jose wants to put filler in his product, he may be an honest guy selling a quality substance[and no doubt superior product compared to what would be on a legal market] but I think the illusion of quality - the illusion of safety - is one of the most potent drugs of all, and people will pay extra for it. Not to mention the fact that there would be little risk to themselves if they walked into a Wal-Mart and plucked it right off the shelf rather than having to resort to some back-alley vendor for their fix.
//| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
edit: furthermore, my thought are not altogether this morning. i think when i have a clearer mindset i'll be able to express myself better. i just hope i've gotten the concept across clearly enough to understand my point of view. i'm not saying i'm right, or anyone is for that matter. what the do we know? |
No doubt, it's not as cut-and-dry an issue as "ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGALIZED THE GOVERNMENT IS OPPRESSING US LOLS" - there's a lot to consider when it comes to people having far more access to potentially detrimental substances. The idea of a nation of nervous, chem-addled citizens is pretty far-fetched, but it's been proven a million times over that people rarely know how to self-governize - that they develop addictions and eventually suffer greatly over these. Of course, the legalization of a substance tends to have little bearing on people who end up overdosing, but to anyone who has ever lost somebody to such an event, I bet they would rather not come to terms with the fact that their friend or loved one bought their death off the shelf at Walgreens. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
You went on to query the long term effects, but he reason the studies are coming up with conflicting results is because ecstasy hasn't been around long enough to properly determine the 'long term' issues that may arise from its use. |
This is false. It has been around since the early 60s, but the ban by the US DEA spurred the worldwide ban. There would never have been a ban if the US did not purport it as being bad with an emergency ban and then subsequent false research that "supported" their claims.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What's funny about this is that this is exactly what MDMA was used for until it was outlawed in the US. |
haha yeah. The article touches on this.
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
this.
e-tards ruined it before, and they'll do it again. |
It wasn't even the e-tards that ruined it. It was the government afraid of something they had no control over and making no money off of. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
I don't disagree with your cynicism one bit. I wasn't trying to say that any government is truly concerned with the health of the individual, but quality control is an issue as it lends itself to liability in a civic sense and so far as insurance is concerned. Were the FDA to approve of a particular chemical for mass production, pharmeceutical corporations would be the ones to front the production costs and if a substance poses harm, they must be prepared for repercussions. Of course all they want to do is make money, but the profit must exceed the costs or else it's a piss-poor decision.
Private chemists however, do not have that liability. You get bad from someone, you're not going to sue them. :stongue: It's the same issue now, ecstasy is often laced with meth and other dubious chems - there's little to no quality control. Now I'm not saying Jose wants to put filler in his product, he may be an honest guy selling a quality substance[and no doubt superior product compared to what would be on a legal market] but I think the illusion of quality - the illusion of safety - is one of the most potent drugs of all, and people will pay extra for it. Not to mention the fact that there would be little risk to themselves if they walked into a Wal-Mart and plucked it right off the shelf rather than having to resort to some back-alley vendor for their fix. |
Well it all depends on how much you trust Jose. He's been selling good on a constant basis. Of course once in a while Jose sells you some bad , but only because he gets it from the same suppliers and follows rule #1 (don't get high on your own supply). So how was he supposed to know the was bad. The best part about Jose is that when he does sell you some wack , he'll front you an extra half g next time you come by; to make up for it. Jose may not be the model citizen, but he's a damn good drug dealer that knows how to keep his customers coming back.
... But enough about Jose for today. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
It wasn't even the e-tards that ruined it. It was the government afraid of something they had no control over and making no money off of. |
All I'm saying is that if there's no one to do the drug in the first place, it becomes a non-issue. |
|
|
|
|
