I think you're confused - DRL
Here's my take.
We already have a pretty large taste of socialism in this country, especially when you discuss things like regulated drug companies.
You're complaining about hypocrisy about the fact that Eli Lilly can legally mess with someone's mind with fun drugs like Prozac, but Bubba down the street isn't allowed to sell MJ to the masses.
Early in this century, we didn't have the FDA. Coca Cola allegedly bottled cocaine in their soda. Predecessors to heroin were freely available. Many of the "cancer cures" and other unregulated medicines sold in this country would amount to illegal drugs (stimulants, antidrepressives, sedatives, etc.) today or they were pure quackery (placebos).
The practice of medicine was hit and miss, and a good doctor was typically someone who "knows what works". Very few doctors were afforded the opportunity to attend a "real" medical school.
The outrage from the deaths and quackery from unregulated drugs created the FDA. With the advent of the FDA, companies then had a process to submit drugs to be tested and approved for general use and their effects on different populations ( children, the elderly, pregnant women ) documented.
Now, most everything under the supervision of the FDA is considered "medicine", and everything that is outside this realm is considered "criminal" or "herbal" (which is often under attack as criminal).
Now, I don't know if you want to advocate legalizing "criminal" drugs, or further restrict the accessibility of corporate drugs.
True capitalism would mean that anyone could sell any drug at any time, with perhaps some requirements to disclose the potential problems a person (or populations) might have in using the drug. Liability would fall to the seller of the drug, and resolution would be handled by a court. There would be no FDA, or some minimum organization that ensured that drugs that came to market had essential documentation. Individuals would be personally responsible for ensuring that the drug did not cause them to die, or damage key body organs, or cause them to inflict harm on other people. That's what most libertarians want.
Most socialists, want all drugs more strictly regulated, where it would take years of study and millions of dollars before Prozac comes to market (like it is here in the US), and then it would be offered at a generic (regulated) price immediately (Canada and Europe). In addition, criminal and "herbal" remedies would be similarly regulated, only available from a licensed doctor in a controlled situation.
Edited by
gdaustin
Oct. 10, 2002, 06:45:15 PM EDT
I think you're confused - DRL
Here's my take.
We already have a pretty large taste of socialism in this country, especially when you discuss things like regulated drug companies.
You're complaining about hypocrisy about the fact that Eli Lilly can legally mess with someone's mind with fun drugs like Prozac, but Bubba down the street isn't allowed to sell MJ to the masses.
Early in this century, we didn't have the FDA. Coca Cola allegedly bottled cocaine in their soda. Predecessors to heroin were freely available. Many of the "cancer cures" and other unregulated medicines sold in this country would amount to illegal drugs (stimulants, antidrepressives, sedatives, etc.) today or they were pure quackery (placebos).
The practice of medicine was hit and miss, and a good doctor was typically someone who "knows what works". Very few doctors were afforded the opportunity to attend a "real" medical school.
The outrage from the deaths and quackery from unregulated drugs created the FDA. With the advent of the FDA, companies then had a process to submit drugs to be tested and approved for general use and their effects on different populations ( children, the elderly, pregnant women ) documented.
Now, most everything under the supervision of the FDA is considered "medicine", and everything that is outside this realm is considered "criminal" or "herbal" (which is often under attack as criminal).
Now, I don't know if you want to advocate legalizing "criminal" drugs, or further restrict the accessibility of corporate drugs.
True capitalism would mean that anyone could sell any drug at any time, with perhaps some requirements to disclose the potential problems a person (or populations) might have in using the drug. Liability would fall to the seller of the drug, and resolution would be handled by a court. There would be no FDA, or some minimum organization that ensured that drugs that came to market had essential documentation. Individuals would be personally responsible for ensuring that the drug did not cause them to die, or damage key body organs, or cause them to inflict harm on other people. That's what most libertarians want.
Most socialists, want all drugs more strictly regulated, where it would take years of study and millions of dollars before Prozac comes to market (like it is here in the US), and then it would be offered at a generic (regulated) price immediately (Canada and Europe). In addition, criminal and "herbal" remedies would be similarly regulated, only available from a licensed doctor in a controlled situation.