Some states allow doctors to prescribe it to people for some conditions. When people talk about a "drug problem," they usually mean abusing legal drugs or using illegal drugs, such as, ecstasy, cocaine, LSD, crystal meth, and heroin to get high.
Illegal drugs aren't good for anyone, but they are particularly bad for a kid or teen whose body is still growing. Illegal drugs can damage the brain, heart, and other important organs.
Cocaine, for instance, can cause a heart attack - even in a kid or teen. While using drugs, people are also less able to do well in school, sports, and other activities.
It's often harder to think clearly and make good decisions. People can do dangerous things that could hurt them - or other people - when they use drugs. Sometimes kids and teens try drugs to fit in with a group of friends. Or they might be curious or just bored. Someone may use illegal drugs for many reasons, but often because they help the person escape from reality for a while. A drug might - temporarily - make someone who is sad or upset feel better or forget about problems.
But this escape lasts only until the drug wears off. Drugs don't solve problems. And using drugs often causes other problems on top of the problems the person had in the first place. Somebody who uses drugs can become dependent on them, or addicted. From the misguided approval and branding of OxyContin, on the basis of information the FDA knew to be faulty, to the puzzling approval of the similar single-entity, extended-release opioids of Opana in and Zohydro in , the FDA operates on the belief that opioids are beneficial in managing chronic pain, although there is to date no persuasive evidence of their effectiveness, and only mounting proof of their morbid risk.
Attorneys and whistleblowers, even though the law that defines the violation, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, falls well within the purview of the FDA. Aggressive in opioid approvals, the FDA has been lethargic in responding to the consequences. The DEA, meanwhile, has the power to set production quotas for some opioids, like hydrocodone and oxycodone, produced for sales.
It could have used this power, as it did during past drug crises , to limit the supply of these dangerous drugs. But Frydl pointed me to data that showed that the agency has since at least let the quota for opioids rise and rise and rise — effectively relinquishing a tool it could have used to limit the rapid growth of opioid use.
Much of this is the result of aggressive lobbying from pharmaceutical companies. And it often worked: In Maine, for example, drugmakers successfully pushed for a bill that required insurers to cover opioid painkillers that are supposedly harder to abuse. In fact, the DEA admits that pharmaceutical companies played a key role in its decision making in its own statements.
The DA [sic], based on the date [sic] provided, has increased the aggregate production quotas for both oxycodone for sale and hydromorphone and has determined that a hearing is not necessary. Consider cigarettes. Sure, smoking rates have come down by nearly three-fourths in the past five decades, in large part thanks to government efforts like higher taxes on cigarettes and stricter enforcement of smoking age laws. But despite these efforts, smoking still kills an astonishing , people each year by some estimates and , by others.
It would take roughly 30 years of murders, at the rate , to kill this many Americans. By the latest estimate, excessive drinking is linked to about 88, deaths and millions of hospitalizations each year.
If anything, this seems to be getting worse: As opioid overdose deaths have risen, so too have alcohol-related deaths. And while experts have all sorts of ideas including something as simple as raising alcohol taxes to combat alcohol misuse and death, lawmakers and regulators have failed to do much of anything — in large part because alcohol companies aggressively lobby them not to, blocking anything from higher taxes to nutrition labels.
These drugs are dangerous and kill people, but Americans and policymakers have become largely desensitized to the deaths — seldom speaking to these hundreds or tens of thousands of deaths as a crisis or epidemic. So these issues, particularly with alcohol, blend into the background, letting the industry get away with its excesses as lawmakers get a pass for inaction.
This just seems to be how legalization works in America. I disagree with Kevin Sabet, a co-founder of the anti-legalization Smart Approaches to Marijuana, on many drug policy issues.
If we were a country with a history of being able to promote moderation in our consumer use of products, or promote responsible corporate advertising or no advertising, or if we had a history of being able to take taxes gained from a vice and redirect them into some positive areas, I might be less concerned about what I see happening in this country.
Opponents of more permissive regimes doubt that black market activity and its associated problems would disappear or even fall very much. But, as before, addressing this question requires knowing the specifics of the regulatory regime, especially the terms of supply.
If drugs are sold openly on a commercial basis and prices are close to production and distribution costs, opportunities for illicit undercutting would appear to be rather small. Under a more restrictive regime, such as government-controlled outlets or medical prescription schemes, illicit sources of supply would be more likely to remain or evolve to satisfy the legally unfulfilled demand. In short, the desire to control access to stem consumption has to be balanced against the black market opportunities that would arise.
Schemes that risk a continuing black market require more questions—about the new black markets operation over time, whether it is likely to be more benign than existing ones, and more broadly whether the trade-off with other benefits still makes the effort worthwhile. The most obvious case is regulating access to drugs by adolescents and young adults. Under any regime, it is hard to imagine that drugs that are now prohibited would become more readily available than alcohol and tobacco are today.
Would a black market in drugs for teenagers emerge, or would the regulatory regime be as leaky as the present one for alcohol and tobacco?
Not surprisingly, the wider international ramifications of drug legalization have also gone largely unremarked. Here too a long set of questions remains to be addressed. Given the longstanding U. What would become of the extensive regime of multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements? Would every nation have to conform to a new set of rules? If not, what would happen? Would more permissive countries be suddenly swamped by drugs and drug consumers, or would traffickers focus on the countries where tighter restrictions kept profits higher?
This is not an abstract question. Finally, what would happen to the principal suppliers of illicit drugs if restrictions on the commercial sale of these drugs were lifted in some or all of the main markets? Would the trafficking organizations adapt and become legal businesses or turn to other illicit enterprises?
What would happen to the source countries? Would they benefit or would new producers and manufacturers suddenly spring up elsewhere? Such questions have not even been posed in a systematic way, let alone seriously studied. Although greater precision in defining more permissive regulatory regimes is critical to evaluating their potential costs and benefits, it will not resolve the uncertainties that exist.
For the complete report on the legalization of marijuana in Colorado, visit the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area website rmhidta. From to , the number of hospitalizations related to marijuana nearly doubled, from to 11,, in Colorado.
So, what would our country be like if all drugs were made legal and open to purchase by all individuals older than 18 years? The incredible increase in collaborative damage from the legalization of marijuana in Colorado could be a clue. I contend that a significant number of individuals in the United States has a propensity for addiction. A portion of them abuse substances, become addicted,and deal with it the best they can.
The other portion prone to addiction does not experiment with drugs due to workplace drug tests or concern for being arrested and unable to secure good employment in the future.
0コメント