Should pseudoephedrine be by prescription only in Oklahoma?

[patric]

So, by this reasoning, those who get strung out on drugs, since it is illegal, should be spending all their time in prison, because it is their responsibility.

Not what I said at all.

[custosnox]

As big a fan as I am concerning the Second Amendment and everybody's RIGHT to own firearms, and to protect themselves, I would disagree with that last statement.  I have seen a lot of people whose personality, decision making and thought processes did change when they picked up a gun.  At the very least, one gets a little more self-confidence in certain situations.  At worse, people can become Dark Score Crazy.  Luckily, there are very few of those.

But it wasn't done chemically.  Same thing would happen if you gave them a fake gun and made them believe it was real

[heironymouspasparagus]

But it wasn't done chemically.  Same thing would happen if you gave them a fake gun and made them believe it was real

Probably just that internal endorphin pump everyone has built in.

[AquaMan]

Kudo's AuqaMan. Well thought out and articulated.
Conan. I alway's liked the wording of end-user. They are usually the ones punished the worst in the hopes of having them roll over on their contacts. Prison is not a rehab. It is a learning ground for how to commit crimes better.

Thank you, sir. 

[nathanm]

AM, that is fearmongering at its finest. Note that at no time did I say that people should be able to drive or fly stoned, drunk, or whatever else. Something not being illegal does not mean society approves of it, only that we recognize that it's not a place appropriate to criminal law.

No it is not fearmongering, its practical experience and logical consequences. You don't have to say that people should be able to drive meth'd up, they simply will be more likely to when you remove all regulation and education efforts and legalize it. We already have experience with people doing these things while they are illegal, why do you think making them common place would decrease that frequency? Isn't logical. All you'll do is boost up business for the clinics doing drug tests which will boost up the businesses making concoctions to hide the drug tests and on and on.

Uh, who said it should be legal to drive while on drugs or that we shouldn't continue to attempt to reduce the incidence of use through education? Again, what evidence do you have that there are people out there who are dissuaded from using drugs by their legal status?

You're putting a bunch of words in my mouth. Legal does not mean approved. It means not criminal.

[AquaMan]

Uh, who said it should be legal to drive while on drugs or that we shouldn't continue to attempt to reduce the incidence of use through education? Again, what evidence do you have that there are people out there who are dissuaded from using drugs by their legal status?

You're putting a bunch of words in my mouth. Legal does not mean approved. It means not criminal.

I think it was you who denigrated education efforts in your post as being a waste of money and time.

Of course it will be illegal to drive while on drugs. It is now. It is illegal to text while driving, drink while driving and pass a school bus with its reds on. Once you totally remove the sanction for breaking those particular rules, do you see the populace increasing or decreasing its violation of them? I see them as disregarding the rule altogether and with increased disdain for authorities. "Yes, you can snort coke in your own backyard, but then you can't drive to work or to the QT for cigs" Yeah, that'll work. The evidence for that ranges from myself, who stopped smoking the herb back in the late seventies when it became apparent that the legal ramifications were real and outweighed the benefit. My friends were doing their jobs stoned, wrecking cars, losing relationships. In Tulsa, prosecution was real. Not so much on the coasts. I was not alone. The entire thinking part of my generation did the same thing. The ones who didn't moved to cocaine, heroin and pretty much fried themselves. Then it became too much of a burden to go after petty MJ smokers and the next generation of drug users, faced with misdemeanor fines at most, made my generation look like pikers. Almost all of my co workers in my last job were stoned. The company drug tested but to no avail. They didn't walk to work either.

It seems to me that you're putting a very fine line on just what "not criminal" , legal and illegal imply. Your view is like replacing Stop signs with Yield signs because people were running the Stop signs anyway. With a yield sign the drivers at least have plausible deniability and traffic can move smoother. Just like round-abouts, the idea is great when you have a well educated, updated driving population. We don't. We have drivers who were tested up to 50 years ago and never again. In the end people simply roll through Yield signs in neighborhoods and ignore them on freeway entrances.

Like I said, I'm a big believer in reality. I am 100% in favor of decriminalizing many drugs but with the stipulation that there would still be consequences that include increasing levels of rehabilitation combined with public service and/or suspensiion of driving privileges. When you tell a populace that a particular drug is dangerous to the non using public, toxic and technically illegal but not worthy of the state pursuing serious legal charges except in egregious circumstances, you effectively are telling them...Yield Sign.

[patric]

Werent these the same arguments used to prop up Prohibition?
When it was repealed, those predisposed to abuse didn't change, but there also wasn't the predicted epidemic of drunk children wandering the streets, either.
Eliminating Prohibition also did away with a huge amount of corruption and mob violence.

[custosnox]

Werent these the same arguments used to prop up Prohibition?
When it was repealed, those predisposed to abuse didn't change, but there also wasn't the predicted epidemic of drunk children wandering the streets, either.
Eliminating Prohibition also did away with a huge amount of corruption and mob violence.

the predisposition to abuse with many of the hard drugs is a much higher percentage of it's users than with Alcohol.  I know of many well adjusted people who drink and manage not to abuse.  However, I cannot say I know that many drug users that don't abuse, especially if they have been using for any significant amount of time.  Apples and Oranges.

[patric]

Apples and Oranges.

...or alcohol and "everything else".  I dont think it's that black-and-white because not every non-alcohol drug is going to have the same effect as the other.

[custosnox]

...or alcohol and "everything else".  I dont think it's that black-and-white because not every non-alcohol drug is going to have the same effect as the other.

But to try and lump all illegal drugs into the same category as alcohol is even worst.  I qualified my comment with the use of hard drugs because it's hard to consider things like pot and shrooms in the same category as meth, heroin and so forth.  However, it seems to me that even the "natural" and "soft" drugs tend to be abused at a fairly high rate.

[heironymouspasparagus]

But to try and lump all illegal drugs into the same category as alcohol is even worst.  I qualified my comment with the use of hard drugs because it's hard to consider things like pot and shrooms in the same category as meth, heroin and so forth.  However, it seems to me that even the "natural" and "soft" drugs tend to be abused at a fairly high rate.

You are right - there are many more deaths and much more cost to society from alcohol than the 'hard drugs' - they should not be in the same category.  And cigarettes would then require their own category too, since it is even higher than alcohol.

[AquaMan]

You are right - there are many more deaths and much more cost to society from alcohol than the 'hard drugs' - they should not be in the same category.  And cigarettes would then require their own category too, since it is even higher than alcohol.

Not sure of your stats for that. Whoa...no stats provided?!

Really, alcohol isn't classified as narcotic even though it is. They all do damage. YOu have to choose your battles though and prohibition was catastrophic. The battle against cigarettes though has shown success. Tobacco usage is down per capita (read that recently, no links, too old) Comparing todays hard drugs and the damage they do vs alcohol isn't the right comparison imo. One has depth, the other has breadth. Same thing with cigarettes.

You know I heard that most cigar smokers actually started on cigarettes. I am the exception.

[custosnox]

You are right - there are many more deaths and much more cost to society from alcohol than the 'hard drugs' - they should not be in the same category.  And cigarettes would then require their own category too, since it is even higher than alcohol.

Can you be sure those numbers aren't skewed by a few factors such as tracking (the fight against drunk driving requires shoving numbers into everyone's face, which means the numbers have to come from somewhere) and the fact that it is legal?  Cigarettes are a completely different discussion, given the fact that they are mood altering (with a ton of other crap added in to make them more addictive), but not mind altering.  Can't ever recall anyone saying that they did something stupid because they just smoked a few cigarettes.  They do outline how dangerous something can become once a legal profit can be made from them, though.  Next thing your going to to is bringing McDonald's into this conversation to try and use as a comparative.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not sure of your stats for that. Whoa...no stats provided?!

Really, alcohol isn't classified as narcotic even though it is. They all do damage. YOu have to choose your battles though and prohibition was catastrophic. The battle against cigarettes though has shown success. Tobacco usage is down per capita (read that recently, no links, too old) Comparing todays hard drugs and the damage they do vs alcohol isn't the right comparison imo. One has depth, the other has breadth. Same thing with cigarettes.

You know I heard that most cigar smokers actually started on cigarettes. I am the exception.

Half a million killed every year directly related to smoking issues.  Been talked about for decades in the press (haven't you heard that?)

Half of auto accident fatalities each year due to alcohol use (down over the years to "only" 15,000 or so).  Again, talked about for decades.  Has shown up in government reports forever.  Personally, I DON'T believe there has been a 60 year long conspiracy to pump the numbers for drunk driving deaths.  It would mean "getting to" every officer that fills out an accident report with breathalyzer or blood test for a driving death, plus all the coroners who report alcohol in the bloodstream if the person causing the wreck died.  Doesn't include non-fatality accidents for same reason, which is a much greater number.  Safe bet that 50% of non-fatal would also be alcohol related with some +/- factor.  Plus all the related 'lost time' issues to the economy - hangover Mondays, early beer bash Fridays (Three two flu).

Can't believe you haven't heard of all that stuff.

As for custosnox comment about no one saying they did something stupid by smoking a few cigarettes - well the stupid is self-evident just by the fact that one smokes.  So, I guess you could say they are permanently mentally impaired...

The case could be made that McDonald's is addictive, I guess - I know that just every once in a while, I just gotta get a Happy Meal!!  But no, that is indeed apples and oranges and saturated fat.

[custosnox]

As for custosnox comment about no one saying they did something stupid by smoking a few cigarettes - well the stupid is self-evident just by the fact that one smokes.  So, I guess you could say they are permanently mentally impaired...

The stupidity generally comes in the beginning, after that it's more of a willpower thing.

The case could be made that McDonald's is addictive, I guess - I know that just every once in a while, I just gotta get a Happy Meal!!  But no, that is indeed apples and oranges and saturated fat.

You should watch supersize me, if you haven't yet.  It really could be argued.  But in any case, my point is, you can start putting all the legal stuff that is bad for us out there, but that doesn't make it the same as something that screws with your ability to think straight.