From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: A distinction between Soft and Hard drugs
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 15:35:27 GMT

In <tmiller.714032777@camms1.caos.kun.nl> tmiller@camms2.caos.kun.nl (Todd M. Miller) writes:
>brrian04@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>>> examine the facts.  I don't know how much you realize it but there is 
>>> a possibility that if LSD were legal someone could put some in your
>>> drink without you knowing it.  In fact this has happened to me twice in
>>Exactly how does LSD being illegal prevent this from happening?
>I never said it did!  All I said was that people can get dosed with LSD,
>and that it happens.  You people (perhaps this poster not included) are 
>the ones who personalized this to try and blame me for the laws.  I said 
>I was dosed without my knowledge, not without my consent.  All I have 
>asserted so far is that the laws were written to protect people.  Whether 
>you or I agree with that premise or not is a matter for discussion, not
>an occasion for ridicule (Again I exclude the current poster from this
>remark).

The fact is that stating that "if LSD were legal someone could put some
in your drink without you knowing it" is *ridiculous*, especially when you
then go on to say "I never said that!"  The only way there is any information
content in the first sentence is if the converse were true--if LSD were
illegal then someone could NOT put it in your drink...this is patently
false, as you yourself said.

>The fact is that the law only prevents it from happening by threatening people
>with jail time.

The fact is that the law doesn't mean anything to anyone who realizes
realistically there is a relatively small chance of getting caught.

>>To get a drug on prescription does not require any knowledge of the drug in
>>question - most people just take what the doctor gives them without knowing
>>anything about what they are taking (in fact doctors often seem reluctant to
>>give out detailed information).
>I would say that is not a true statement.  When people go to the doctor
>they know what is wrong with them and the doctor gives them something and
>tells them what it will do concerning the symptoms they know very much
>about.

Not necessarily.  Many times I've had doctors give me a prescription with
basically "ok this will fix you", no description of how or why or what
to expect, unless maybe there were particularly significant side effects.

>		In the USA society has invested a lot of time and effort to 
>see that drugs are despensed for specific reasons through doctors 
>(our modern time medicine men).  We are not talking about something 
>where you can say "there are no hard and soft rights" and expect people 
>to buy that as a solution.  The problem and the attempted solutions have
>already gotten far more involved than that.  If all drugs were legal for 
>everyone to purchase how would you know that the medicine you used two 
>years ago has been found to cause cancer and there is a replacement now?

1) Expect your physician/drug administerer to be ethical and keep up with
these things, and don't take drugs without consultation.

2) Consumer reports.  To re-phrase your sentence, "if all cars were legal
for everyone to purchase, how would you know that the Pinto you bought
several years ago was found to have a fatal defect in the gas tank?"
Keep yourself informed about such things if you care about safety.

I don't see why these aren't simple.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
         "There is no time for metaphors," cried the little pill to me
             He said, "Life is a placebo masquerading as a simile."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs