What makes some drugs ‘good’ and some drugs bad’?
In society, we have open hands towards perscription and OTC drugs, but illegal drugs are seen as just plain evil. But dont ALL drugs have the potential to do good and bad? How can you determine whats exceptable and what is not? EX. Viagra is widely accepted, but im sure a drug that directly enduces an orgasm would be seen as evil. Oxycodone is a widely available perscription narcotic, eventhough it has a greater liklihood to be abused than marijuana. Wouldnt it be better to put illegal drugs in the hands of pharmaceuticals so they can determine for themselves whether a drug would be of benefit to a patient? Since, drugs like LSD and marijuana have proven medical(or in LSD’s case pshycological) potential benefit.
yes all drugs have the potential to good or bad, thats why we are not supposed to medicate ourselves. it should be left to the medical professionals who have experience with this and any side effects can be monitored and any other drug interactionos can be monitored.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:53 am
yes all drugs have the potential to good or bad, thats why we are not supposed to medicate ourselves. it should be left to the medical professionals who have experience with this and any side effects can be monitored and any other drug interactionos can be monitored.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Marijuana grows in nature so the FDA has no power to sell it as a drug (it must be made in a lab somewhere for the FDA to have authority over it). LSD freak-outs are beneficial?? People can go crazy from that stuff and it can also permanently warp your chromosomes. Deformed children = benefit, right?
Drugs rarely cure anything, they just mask the symptoms. The wisest thing you can do is thoroughly research anything that you put into your body.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 6:49 am
General society does think in terms of good and evil, but that’s not true in the medical community. Risks and benefits are weighed, and that’s why marijuana and LSD are in class I. The evidence for their benefit is weak, and the evidence for risk is strong. There’s lots of anecdotal evidence for possible benefits of marijuana, and it’s possible it might have a change in classification with further evidence, but so far studies are inadequate. With LSD, the pattern was the same as with a lot of drugs that have wound up in the pharmacologic trash-bin: small initial studies showed promise, and later studies showed differently. You’ll note, though, that thalidomide is back on the market after decades of non-use after its association with birth defects shook the world. This is not to say that the FDA isn’t influenced by societal pressures and politics, but it isn’t as cut-and-dried as your post suggests, and medical marijuana can be had for study, and with adequate studies it can be submitted like any other drug.
As a side note, I’d point out that Tennessee had a rule prohibiting the use of phen-fen for weight control. Under public pressure, the state legislature made the medical board change its rule, since it was obvious to everybody that it was a good combination. Shortly thereafter, further studies showed conclusively that the medical board had been right all along. This is a good parallel to the "medical marijuana" bullcrap. There is no such thing as medical marijuana, and no proof of any benefit. I personally think the stuff should be legalized on purely libertarian grounds, but as a physician I object to the end-run of the "medical marijuana" advocates. If you want to practice medicine, go to medical school.
References :
November 4th, 2009 at 7:21 am
side effects
References :