jv103 on 16 January 2009
| akuma587 said: I mean if you can demonstrate valid sociological and physiological evidence that a drug should be outlawed because it is dangerous, then that is perfectly fine. Otherwise it should be legal or at least decriminalized. Furthermore, a lot of drugs are only unsafe because the aren't regulated. MDMA (ecstasy) itself, for instance, really isn't overly dangerous. However, the fact that so few ecstasy pills are 100% MDMA makes the drug dangerous since you never really know what you are getting. Lack of regulation has made this drug way more dangerous than it would be otherwise. |
I would totally agree with you on the regulation thing, except that it would necessitate a competent regulatory body. I remember that Cox-2 inhibitors vioxx and celebrex both increased the rate of heart attacks dramatically and still got passed. Vioxx supposedly contributed to 27,000 heart attacks. That drug should have never been passed through the FDA with such horrible health side effects. Or at least you would hope it wouldn't have. Yeah pure drugs would be less harmful in the recreational arena though.
