[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Prohibition was wrong for booze, it's also wrong for other drugs..... of course unless it's big pharma, then it's okay to be a druggie. If you could get smack from Pfizer this wouldn't even be a discussion anywhere.

can you tell me what kind of drugs big pharma sells, freely available for anyone, that is equivalent to heroin, speed, meta-amphetamines and magical mushrooms?
I'd like to know, I'm sure I could find a way to turn this in a profit, buying legit, selling illegal

Seriously, prescription drug abuse is on a similar order to illegal drug abuse in significance.

The silliness lies in assuming that "big pharma" is enouraging such abuse.

I dunno - was it silliness to think that tobacco companies were complicit in smuggling cigarettes?

[HVC]

Seriously, prescription drug abuse is on a similar order to illegal drug abuse in significance.

The homemakers helper has been a huge issue since the 50's. Depressed houswives sure do like their meds.

[Malthus]

I dunno - was it silliness to think that tobacco companies were complicit in smuggling cigarettes?

Pharma manufacturers are far more dependant on regulator's goodwill than tobacco companies.

They get ten kinds of shit for even attempting to encourage *perfectly legal* off-label prescription of their products by physicians. If they were ever caught encoraging fraudulent prescribing, they would get orders of magnitude more shit - revocation of licences would be only the beginning.

[Barrister]

I dunno - was it silliness to think that tobacco companies were complicit in smuggling cigarettes?

Pharma manufacturers are far more dependant on regulator's goodwill than tobacco companies.

They get ten kinds of shit for even attempting to encourage *perfectly legal* off-label prescription of their products by physicians. If they were ever caught encoraging fraudulent prescribing, they would get orders of magnitude more shit - revocation of licences would be only the beginning.

You have more faith in regulatory agencies than I do.

[Malthus]

I dunno - was it silliness to think that tobacco companies were complicit in smuggling cigarettes?

Pharma manufacturers are far more dependant on regulator's goodwill than tobacco companies.

They get ten kinds of shit for even attempting to encourage *perfectly legal* off-label prescription of their products by physicians. If they were ever caught encoraging fraudulent prescribing, they would get orders of magnitude more shit - revocation of licences would be only the beginning.

You have more faith in regulatory agencies than I do.

No, I've just seen what drug companies - my clients after all - find frightening. 

In any business, there are "grey areas" - shit that is technically contrary to regulations, but which regulators cannot enforce, or do not enforce, because it is impossible or because standards in reality have changed and the regulations simply haven't caught up.

There are however other things that everyone fully understands are drop-dead wrongs that will cause the authorities to crack down, devote extra resources just to fuck with you if they ever even suspect you are doing them.

The sorts of drugs that people are wont to abuse are, as you know, regulated as narcotics or controlled substances ... everyone in the indistry knows that Health Canada has zero tollerance for any sort of fuckery with such things.

[viper37]

Lots of people already doing that with oxycontin...

it's prescription drugs, though.

@Malthus I know that.
But I was asking about non prescription drug, because it's implied that people can, right now, walk into a grocery store or a drugstore and buy something equivalent to illegal drugs and it was legal because it was coming from "big pharma" unlike heroin&other drugs wich comes from gentle & compationate people...

[crazy canuck]

I think what Buddha was saying is that the line between legal drug sales and illegal drug sales is somewhat arbitrary.  But where I think he goes wrong is suggesting the drug companies are the cause of that particular problem.

I am pretty sure that if the drug companies had access to those other markets they would not complain very much.

[Jacob]

@Malthus I know that.
But I was asking about non prescription drug, because it's implied that people can, right now, walk into a grocery store or a drugstore and buy something equivalent to illegal drugs and it was legal because it was coming from "big pharma" unlike heroin&other drugs wich comes from gentle & compationate people...

It's not really legitimate to compare heroin et. al. to non-prescription drugs. If heroin and drugs like that were legalized, I'm pretty sure they'd require a prescription of some sort.

[viper37]

@Malthus I know that.
But I was asking about non prescription drug, because it's implied that people can, right now, walk into a grocery store or a drugstore and buy something equivalent to illegal drugs and it was legal because it was coming from "big pharma" unlike heroin&other drugs wich comes from gentle & compationate people...

It's not really legitimate to compare heroin et. al. to non-prescription drugs. If heroin and drugs like that were legalized, I'm pretty sure they'd require a prescription of some sort.

I have my doubts.

[Neil]

@Malthus I know that.
But I was asking about non prescription drug, because it's implied that people can, right now, walk into a grocery store or a drugstore and buy something equivalent to illegal drugs and it was legal because it was coming from "big pharma" unlike heroin&other drugs wich comes from gentle & compationate people...

It's not really legitimate to compare heroin et. al. to non-prescription drugs. If heroin and drugs like that were legalized, I'm pretty sure they'd require a prescription of some sort.

I have my doubts.

Is there an opiate that doesn't require a prescription?

At any rate, I would think that a prescription would make sense, but if you legalize heroin and the hard drugs, it won't be like that.

[dps]

@Malthus I know that.
But I was asking about non prescription drug, because it's implied that people can, right now, walk into a grocery store or a drugstore and buy something equivalent to illegal drugs and it was legal because it was coming from "big pharma" unlike heroin&other drugs wich comes from gentle & compationate people...

It's not really legitimate to compare heroin et. al. to non-prescription drugs. If heroin and drugs like that were legalized, I'm pretty sure they'd require a prescription of some sort.

I have my doubts.

Is there an opiate that doesn't require a prescription?

At any rate, I would think that a prescription would make sense, but if you legalize heroin and the hard drugs, it won't be like that.

Yeah, we had this debate a while back.

As I see it, if you're going to legalize recreational drugs, it makes no sense to make them prescription only.  That would be like making alcohol prescription only--it would create such a large black market that you might as well bring back prohibition.

[viper37]

At any rate, I would think that a prescription would make sense, but if you legalize heroin and the hard drugs, it won't be like that.

that.  we're talking, theoritically about having all drugs legal.

I'm aware there are legal drugs, prescribed by doctors with effects probably similar to heroin or other drugs, but I don't know the specifics, nor do I really care.  There's a difference between what a doctor will give you, when you respect the ordinance and just taking any kind of shit.

[Zoupa]

Is there an opiate that doesn't require a prescription?

At any rate, I would think that a prescription would make sense, but if you legalize heroin and the hard drugs, it won't be like that.

Low dose codeine in association. Not that you can get high on it.

[garbon]

I dunno - was it silliness to think that tobacco companies were complicit in smuggling cigarettes?

Pharma manufacturers are far more dependant on regulator's goodwill than tobacco companies.

They get ten kinds of shit for even attempting to encourage *perfectly legal* off-label prescription of their products by physicians. If they were ever caught encoraging fraudulent prescribing, they would get orders of magnitude more shit - revocation of licences would be only the beginning.

You have more faith in regulatory agencies than I do.

No, I've just seen what drug companies - my clients after all - find frightening. 

Regulatory agencies are quick to strike down drugs over tiniest little issues.  A drug company advocating a product for a recreational use would be found out and quickly dismantled by its shareholders.

[garbon]

There's a difference between what a doctor will give you, when you respect the ordinance and just taking any kind of shit.

Yes because there is a shortage of shady, unethical doctors.