I didn't look, but does the author also favor the criminalization of tobacco products and alcohol? Seems his only argument (admittedly I just skimmed the post) is the dangers associated with it. If that's the standard, we should probably ban firearms as well.
The only question I have is about traffic accidents. His statistics show a 100 percent increase in marijuana related traffic deaths. That is 78 vs. 39. He doesn't say how many of these had other circumstances too - alcohol, texting, other distractions.
I found it interesting that, when he cited another article on these traffic incidents, he was citing an article he had written on the matter that took issue with an article that was written by Radley Balko. He had no real data to back up his assertions, ( and he even stated in his article that data he would find acceptable would not even be available till late in 2014). This was a poorly written article by someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about. Pretty typical of Heritage, though.
False dichotomy. He can care and still favor the policy that gives more freedom than less. People hurt themselves all the time. Why aren't we advocating for all of the potentially dangerous items to be banned? I'll ask it again: if the standard is based on the potential of the item to hurt or kill, why isn't more of INGO in favor of the prohibition of firearms?Are you of the belief that increased access to mind altering substances will NOT lead to increased accidents and death? Or do you just not care because you want everything legalized?
Might there be adverse consequences? Sure. It could happen, might even be an uptick in negative consequences for some people. So what? You doctors kill more people on a yearly basis than guns or pot. I'm not calling for you to be banned or censured, even though statistics show you folks to be much more dangerous than many things. That's not the issue. Alcohol is responsible for many more deaths than illegal drugs, You going to call for prohibition to be reinstated? Or do we let adults determine what to put in their own bodies? There are already penalties in place for people who harm others, so we already have a "safety net", of sorts.Are you of the belief that increased access to mind altering substances will NOT lead to increased accidents and death? Or do you just not care because you want everything legalized?
I have never seen him admit a downside to legalizing drugs. he smears any study/article/comment against legalizing. I just want him to say legalizing and freedom in this scenario outweighs the harms that will come with it.
he also will not answer my question as to whethe he supports OTC stat us for everu pharmaceutical. if heroin should be free and legally obtainable, is he also advocating for lasix, zyprexa, percocet, etc.
the "monopoly"... there are a million places to get a script these days. blah blah blah.
You keep moving the goalposts. And yes, I do believe that freedom and relegalisation outweighs the minor harms that might come with it. As for your assertion that I've refused to answer a question...well, I can't answer something that you've never asked me. Why should heroin be free? The Bayer Company, it's creators certainly charged for it, why wouldn't any pharma company? Why should drugs be free? As for whether drugs should be OTC, I see no issue with that. They were OTC for ages before the government decided they could regulate them. Nothing there to keep doctors from still prescribing them for their patients. Or are you just concerned about your current monopoly on granting people access to necessary drugs?
I disagree. My family has a host of medical problems and I have found doctors to be largely useless. I could have saved myself a fortune in bypassing them altogether if I had access to the necessary medications. Thanks to the nanny state, I have to pay drug dealers with diplomas to give us the meds that I already researched.
Be honest, how many doctor visits revolve almost solely around getting a prescription? I know it's a huge percentage.