USA - The problem with private prisons

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

I think the War on Some (Unfashionable) Drugs is primarily moral and cultural.

The drugs laws are based, like most laws today, on utilitarian moral arguments. Certain drugs should be illegal, the argument goes, because the use of these drugs causes terrible consequences for society - harm to children via drug addiction, abuse, or neglect; addicts are unproductive and/or criminal; drug manufacturers will pray on the poor and mentally ill; intoxicated drivers will kill people; et cetera.

There are two ways to answer this. One can argue that most of the utilitarian arguments against drugs are flawed, and that the War on Drugs causes far more disutility than drugs themselves do. This is the most common argument. It is correct, but it gives ground to the Prohibitionists by agreeing that we should have a War on Drugs or not based on utilitarian grounds.

Another way to answer is to reject the argument from consequences entirely and argue from some other ethical standard - deontology, natural rights theory (much of which is contained in the American Constitution), or - my favorite - the ethic of reciprocity (ie "love others as yourself").

The latter might be a way to influence Christians. Though the "official" arguments for the WoD are based on utilitarianism, Christian puritanism is behind much of the cultural feelings against drugs, I think. Ask them whether Jesus would lock an addict up in a cage as punishment or try to help the addict kick his habit.


ECL

Damn straight. You can't argue that drugs are safe or that drug laws are ineffective because that's exactly what they want you to do. The other side can always produce studies and such that say the opposite, and at the same time you're telling them to keep trying to protect us from ourselves, you just want them to do a better job at it.

Unfortunately, until our society changes in some very fundamental ways, such as people taking personal responsibility for their actions, I don't see any major changes taking place. Sure Marijuana might become legalized, but only until some more paid researchers find out it makes your children grow a third nipple.

Ultimately the best argument we have is that any laws against any victimless crime are for a lack of a better word 'evil'.

[Heretic.Ape.]

Any idea how much it costs to run? Yeah... the very process of running involves being bought unless you are independently VERY wealthy.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by heretic.ape.

Any idea how much it costs to run? Yeah... the very process of running involves being bought unless you are independently VERY wealthy.

I don't think it technically costs much of anything does it? Especially with the internet you can get the word out quite cheaply. If you want to have a chance in hell of winning is something else entirely...

[Bikelbees]

Now I have seen some evidence of the pharmaceutical industry influence in the US I may be changing my skepticism about this being a factor. What I cant understand is, if alcohol and tobacco provides the dosh to promote prohibition of drugs, why are they having their sales so directly hit by government restrictions on their sale? I'm not even sure why business doesn't see an opportunity in selling natural drugs as well. OK you can grow them yourself in a garden, but its much easier to buy over the counter if it was legal and marketed.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

Now I have seen some evidence of the pharmaceutical industry influence in the US I may be changing my skepticism about this being a factor. What I cant understand is, if alcohol and tobacco provides the dosh to promote prohibition of drugs, why are they having their sales so directly hit by government restrictions on their sale? I'm not even sure why business doesn't see an opportunity in selling natural drugs as well. OK you can grow them yourself in a garden, but its much easier to buy over the counter if it was legal and marketed.

Any of the drugs that can be used in a non-recreational context, such as psychedelics used for psychotherapeutic purposes, can be dangerous to the business of big pharma.

Consider all the various anti-depressants, anxiolytics, and other medicines available for mental health. They are all maintenance medicines, and the pharmaceutical industry would like you to keep taking them for the rest of your life. Can you imagine what a threat things like MDMA, LSD, Ibogaine, and all the rest are to their business? If you can resolve the inner conflicts contributing to your depression with a few sessions of MDMA-assisted therapy would you keep taking Prozac for years on end, especially given the nasty side effects meds like Prozac and all the rest get you?

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

I'm not even sure why business doesn't see an opportunity in selling natural drugs as well.

I think that there are broadly two reasons:

1. To get something approved for theraputic use (i.e. as a drug) takes time and costs money because of the approvals process, and most applications fail along the way. This is why so many are marketed as health supplements and the like, because these markets are less regulated.

2. There would be no chance of a patent, because it's an existing compound. Without patent protection, no company is going to bother with the expense of approval because other companies could then start producing and selling the drug - in effect getting a free ride.

[Bikelbees]

I'm hearing more and more about this on several threads, and reading between the lines it looks as if ideas are being hatched as to how to lobby (to put a sugar-coating on it) the pharmaceutical industry.

I can see a lot of persuasive points, but I'm not sure if I buy the whole picture. OK, drug companies did try (and failed) to patent ayahuasca, and so it would be difficult to patent generic plants per se, but yet companies do make money from their share of drugs which are easily made anywhere in the world. Even aspirin and paracetemol are marketed under a thousand brand-names and mixed with other substances such as caffeine to make identifiable brand protected products like Hedex etc. If I could sell cannabis legally I would probably be thinking of cool brand names with Cowboy logos for my unique blend of smooth and flavoursome premium hybrids.

Certainly I cannot see the argument about needing to get substances licensed for that is their bread and butter stuff of the industry, they have plenty of resources and time.

Bajeda (and H.Ape on another thread) said that they would lose out on prescriptions, as drugs like LSD would make a lot of treatments redundant. I can see the interest in illness, but if they can market LSD type drugs, its going to be certified pure and with their secret ingredients its the best on the market, its the same story again - I can't see it in these terms.

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

companies do make money from their share of drugs which are easily made anywhere in the world

This is the generic drugs market. The patent protection for things like asprin, paracetemol and ibuprofen has expired, and therefore any company can make drugs containing them. These drugs have already been approved, and the sponsoring company has received patent protection for anything up to twenty years, which should have given them time to more than recoup their investment.

The problem for unpatentable things like herbs that have been used for centuries is that they don't have government approval for use as a drug and therefore they can't be marketed as a drug, and doctors cannot proscribe them to treat a condition. And because patent protection cannot be gained, noone would spend the money to get it approved.

There's some general information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug

I don't know enough about the drugs regulation process to know if a drug with a long history of use (like the "herbs used for centuries" above) could be granted approval under the GRAS (generally recognised as safe) rules, but that might be a possible alternative.