Benefits from legalisation of drugs

[rand0m]

Get your cocaine from Superdrug (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article3492202.ece) - The celebrity glamorisation of drugs is irrelevant. There would be huge benefits from legalisation

The UN officials who condemned Britain's celebrity culture for glamorising cocaine yesterday presumably haven't watched the footage of Amy Winehouse in sandals, with injection marks between her toes. If these teetotal bureaucrats think that the singer's fans will follow her on to crack, they are far more naive than the British public. For people under 40, drugs are ubiquitous. Most of my generation thinks of cocaine much as our parents thought of single malt. Kate Moss, if the rumours were true, was just joining in with the mainstream. Whereas Amy has clearly gone beyond - as the thousands of bets on whenwillamy- winehousedie.com seem to testify.

The most powerful role models are dealers, not celebrities. All over Britain, men in gold jewellery flaunt their wealth at school gates. Teachers tell me how hard it is to convince teenagers to get NVQs, when they can have a career with Drugs Inc and aspire to make £1,000 a day. Drugs Inc is one of the most profitable, successful businesses of all time. The UN values it at about $330 billion, almost as big as the defence industry. The criminals who run Drugs Inc shift staggering amounts of stock with no conventional advertising. They offer free samples to children and discounts for trading up to harder substances. They motivate their salesforce with threats.

As a result, drugs are now the second-largest revenue earner for organised crime. The profit margins, according to the Downing Street Strategy Unit, are higher than those on luxury goods. Drugs Inc pays no tax. And with so much money at stake, its barons are vicious. Violence has soared as rival gangs battle for a share of the profits.

Two weeks ago Sunday Essiet became the fifth teenager to be murdered in London this year (and we're only two months in). The little Nigerian boy was “kicked like a football” in Plumstead, the victim of what residents claimed was a drug turf war between white and Somali groups. A few months earlier a 13-year-old girl had been knifed in her playground in mid-afternoon by rivals of her friend, an 18-year-old drug dealer. These are children. What better demonstration is there that the “war on drugs” has failed?

We won't end this violence by jailing celebrities or middle-class users. The only way to take back our streets is to wrest back control of the drugs from the criminals, by legalising and regulating their trade.

Imagine if you could buy coke from Boots. Or the aptly named Superdrug. That would drain the glamour from it more effectively than making a martyr of Kate Moss. I don't imagine her lovely features would adorn state-regulated packets of white powder, hanging next to the corn plasters. Yes, legalisation would make drugs cheaper, in order to undercut the dealers. Yes, usage might increase. But perhaps not much, because it is already widespread. A third of 16 to 24-year-olds routinely admit to having tried drugs, despite knowing that they are admitting to a crime.

The benefits of legalisation could be enormous. Overcrowded prisons would be relieved of people needing treatment rather than punishment (about 15 per cent of prisoners are in for possession or supply). Addicts would not be forced into associating with criminals. Children could be safe in Britain's playgrounds again.

Something similar happened in 1933, when America repealed Prohibition. The ban on alcohol had corrupted the police, increased the number of hard drinkers and created a whole new criminal class of bootleg suppliers. Britain's equivalent of Prohibition was the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. Up to that time we had treated addiction as an illness, heroin addicts got their fix on prescription, and there were only 5,000 problematic drug users, according to Transform, the drug policy group. Thirty years on there are 280,000. That is a direct result of Drugs Inc, which makes more money from pushing harder substances. Our laws have created crack, a concentrated form of cocaine, and skunk, a concentrated form of cannabis, both of which are devastating.

The prohibitionists fail to distinguish between recreational and problem users. The vast majority of people stick to recreational use of cocaine, Ecstasy and substances that even the Strategy Unit has classified as low-risk. There are tragic cases, of course, but they are often caused by impure supplies. Cocaine and Ecstasy can be cut with other substances. Glass has recently been found in cannabis - another nasty aspect of Drugs Inc that would disappear if the market went to Boots.

Annual deaths from drug use (about 2,000) are still minuscule compared with those related to alcohol and tobacco (about 160,000). These figures are not precise, because some people abuse all three. But it is arguable that the violence associated with the illegal drugs trade does more harm than the drugs themselves.

The irony is that it is the UN and its drug conventions that are the biggest barrier to progress. Its ideological war on drugs makes it almost impossible for countries to be pragmatic. It has demanded that Portugal, which decriminalised possession, should recant. Yet Portugal has accepted the reality that in GDP terms, it is dwarfed by Drugs Inc. As a result, it has seen crime fall.

The only way to make our streets safe is to wipe Drugs Inc off the map. The only way to do that is to legalise the trade. That would also redraw the map, because drug lords from Colombia to Afghanistan would no longer find the trade so lucrative. The UN's blindness to this is unforgivable: even worse than its failure to understand that Amy Winehouse, despite her beautiful voice, is the perfect health warning.

30 years ago addiction was treated as an illness, now its treated as crime.

[Mr.SelfDestruct]

I don't know how it works in your world, but addiction in the USA is treated as an illness, possession is treated as a crime.

[Canuk]

The way I see it is that in alot of countries, the governments are spending Billions of dollars to fight drugs. The result is that the drugs that get through are expensive which means drug addicts cannot buy a lot. Because of this, it takes a lot of time for the heavy junkies to die because they cannot get a lot of drugs at any one time. A better strategy would be to legalize the drugs. This would eliminate alot of the financing for organized crime. Also, this revenue would mean that governments would make a profit off drugs rather than a loss trying to keep it out of the country. The profits from these drugs could be used to better educate the population about the dangers of drugs as well as give better funding to the police to fight real criminals. The result would be that almost no one wouldn't know the dangers that these heavy drugs posed. Therefore, anyone that does die even after knowing the dangers of these drugs would really fall under the category of Social Darwinism. Anyone stupid enough to take heavy drugs, knowing full well the dangers wouldn't deserve anyone's sympathy. The overall result of this policy would be greater public awareness about drugs, greater funding for police and Junkies can buy cheap heavy drugs to kill themselves faster.

[rand0m]

I don't know how it works in your world, but addiction in the USA is treated as an illness, possession is treated as a crime.

Wait so you don't see possession and addiction as sort of connected?

I don't know about your world but in my world you have to actually use the stuff to get addicted ...

[Fungus Amungus]

Addiction is not a illness. It's a loss of mental control.

[chalupa]

Addiction is not a illness. It's a loss of mental control.

I'm not going to jump on you and ask where you got your PhD, I'm going to ask instead...isn't a loss of mental control an illness?

[shade]

The biggest effects are economic ones.

If US farmers are allowed to grow poppy crops, coca crops, marijuana crops, etc, and sell the plants legally, we would shut down worldwide conflicts all over the world overnight. So much violence, "revolutions", civil wars, etc all around the world are funded by illegal drug trade or are fought over the ability to control the supply of illegal drug trade.

The only reason they have a profit margin is because supply and demand are out of whack due to it being illegal, so prices are much higher. US farmers would be able to legally undercut and put the black market out of business. Gangs would drop off immediately. Gang violence would no longer have motive (no "turf" needed anymore).

Drug lords in Columbia would not be able to compete. Violence throughout Asia would stop. The taliban would not be able to sell opium. The list goes on.

It would literally be a big step towards world peace.

[Henkie]

And I thought I was the resident crazy liberal extremist around here...

Really, there's a reason why the stuff is outlawed, and while any law is going to get broken I do think the principle of the thing does matter as well.

[Fungus Amungus]

I'm not going to jump on you and ask where you got your PhD, I'm going to ask instead...isn't a loss of mental control an illness?

I'm not saying insanity. I'm saying people put this magical effect with drugs, but if people would look at it as just soem chemcials that alter your body temporarily, people wouldn't bother. Also when was the last time someone loss thier addiction from a treatment plan? Never. People only quit drugs when they want to. Illness would suggest it's cureable by medication and it's out of the person control. You can never cure someone of drugs, they have to make the decision to quit.

[Mr.SelfDestruct]

Wait so you don't see possession and addiction as sort of connected?

I don't know about your world but in my world you have to actually use the stuff to get addicted ...

You can't get arrested for being addicted to a drug. You can't be arrested for currently being under the influence of a drug (outside of public intoxication or driving under the influence). In reality, A can always be equal to B, but B does not have to be equal to A.

example:

All Jihadists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Jihadists.

Those drugs are illegal because it's nigh impossible to control the market surrounding them. Legalizing drugs isn't a solution.

[rand0m]

Legalizing drugs isn't a solution.

Solution to what?

Since legalizing drugs will banish more than half the criminals, drug rings, gang cultures.

Legalizing drugs will stop most of the funding to third world wars, it will provide a legal honest working for opium farmers.


Of course you get the splash back from morons abusing it, however this pales in comparison to the impact on the world stablity and crime.

Example:

All Jihadists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Jihadists.

wtf? You really have to stoop low enough to bring up another topic you still can't prove me wrong on? Whats the matter can't think of an argument for this topic you want to open the field to another?

[I 0_0 I]

england sucks. that tiny midget of a nation. no one cares what they think, stop quoting shit from their papers.


USA byaatch.

[modogthemonkey]

Solution to what?

Since legalizing drugs will banish more than half the criminals, drug rings, gang cultures.


Yep it would certainly cut out the middle men.The government would make a bomb in tax too.

england sucks. that tiny midget of a nation. no one cares what they think, stop quoting shit from their papers.


USA byaatch.

Thank for that wonderful snippet of information.

[I 0_0 I]

thanks. i like winning arguments. :)

[modogthemonkey]

thanks. i like winning arguments. :)

Its ok,I thought it was one of the most intelligent arguments I had seen in long while.

[Chewy]

Addiction is not a illness. It's a loss of mental control. The The DSM IV disagrees with you. In Canada there is a growing push to address addictions as a Mental Health Issue. More so the growing understanding is that a very large percentage has a binary issue or issue, for example Bi-polar and additions, or OCD and alcoholism. These we call concurrent disorders and the account for almost 60-70% of those using.

I'm not saying insanity. I'm saying people put this magical effect with drugs, but if people would look at it as just soem chemcials that alter your body temporarily, people wouldn't bother. Also when was the last time someone loss thier addiction from a treatment plan? daily. Treatment plan is a wide spectrum to assist a person. Ranging form Residential holistic models to coach time and heavy psycho-therapy even medication.


Never. People only quit drugs when they want to. Illness would suggest it's cureable by medication and it's out of the person control. You can never cure someone of drugs, they have to make the decision to quit.One of the largest myths about addictions is that people have to hit rock bottom before they can get help or get motivated to recover. Absolute horse shit, that may work for a few people however not the vast majority.

[kazuri]

People should be able to do whatever the fuck they want in their own house, as long as it isnt hurting/going to hurt anyone else. Its as simple as that.

Those drugs are illegal because it's nigh impossible to control the market surrounding them. Legalizing drugs isn't a solution.

Seems to work fine for some other countries. --- depends on what you mean by those, though. And besides that, it doesnt matter. Does the government control the market on people who grow their own tomatoes, etc?

[Fungus Amungus]

One of the largest myths about addictions is that people have to hit rock bottom before they can get help or get motivated to recover. Absolute horse shit, that may work for a few people however not the vast majority.

Did I ever say you had to hit rock bottom? No. I'm saying people approach it saying "it's a illness" or they have to open to god to be cured. THAT is horse shit. There is no way to cure an addiction. Addiction is a behavior and no medicine can control that. Only the person can make the choice of quiting not a pill.

I grew up with Bi-polar. I was diagnose with it when I was 11, but I never took medication. Everyday I would control my anger and emotions. At around age 15 I was able to become very socialable and when I was 17, I was no longer considered Bi-polar. I did this without drugs and all by self control and support from my family. I beleive people loose alot of faith in how powerful a human can really be and surrender themselves to plants.

[drahkcorjc]

I propose an idea:

Let everything be legal, but any crimes committed while under the influence of any mind-altering substance will be punishable far worse than the same crime committed while sober.

[Chewy]

Did I ever say you had to hit rock bottom? No. I'm saying people approach it saying "it's a illness" or they have to open to god to be cured. THAT is horse shit. WTF are you talking about?? How in hell does that relay into how the DSM-IV??
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is an American handbook for mental health professionals that lists different categories of mental disorders and the criteria for diagnosing them, according to the publishing organization the American Psychiatric Association. It is used worldwide by clinicians and researchers as well as insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and policy makers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers


There is no way to cure an addiction. Addiction is a behavior and no medicine can control that. Only the person can make the choice of quiting not a pill.Some behaviors are symptoms of disorders, mental/ anti social disorders for example these are seen as 'illnesses' and 'treatment' can range from a number of tools available to them including medication, believe it or not some additions can be treated with medication and in some cases individuals are abusing substances in a means to self medicate an acting disorder. Illicit drugs have active qualities that do for some people 'assist' them in managing their mental health issues.

[Fungus Amungus]

WTF are you talking about?? How in hell does that relay into how the DSM-IV??


You quoted me from a prior post...

"Never. People only quit drugs when they want to. Illness would suggest it's cureable by medication and it's out of the person control. You can never cure someone of drugs, they have to make the decision to quit."

You responded with...

"One of the largest myths about addictions is that people have to hit rock bottom before they can get help or get motivated to recover. Absolute horse shit, that may work for a few people however not the vast majority."

I responded...

"Did I ever say you had to hit rock bottom? No. I'm saying people approach it saying "it's a illness" or they have to open to god to be cured. THAT is horse shit. There is no way to cure an addiction. Addiction is a behavior and no medicine can control that. Only the person can make the choice of quiting not a pill."


I should be the one saying WTF.

[I 0_0 I]

Its ok,I thought it was one of the most intelligent arguments I had seen in long while.

cool thanks. let me know if you have any more queries.

[painfulogic]

Drugs should be legal for one simple reason.

I should fucking be able to do drugs if I want, period.

The fact that people can have firearms but not drugs is pure hypocrisy. People take caffeine every morning because they believe that the negative effect of caffeine on their body is worth the effect of the drug. People take pain killers when they have a head ache, even with negative effects on the body, because the effect of the drug is worth it.

We use drugs because we find the effect entertaining or useful, and while all drugs may have some negative effects on our body, it is up to the individual to decide if it is worth it.

All you people talking about "drug addicts", if you drink coffee every morning you are a drug addict. If you take aspirin when ever you have a headache, you are a drug addict.

Drugs, used responsively, can be an amazing part of life. To restrict people from these experiences is a travesty.

[DazednConfused]

I propose an idea:

Let everything be legal, but any crimes committed while under the influence of any mind-altering substance will be punishable far worse than the same crime committed while sober.I'd take it over the current system. It would be a more rational outlet for people's hatred of drug users than just punishing everyone who gets caught with the stuff.

My problem with it is, if said drugs really do cause people to be more likely to commit crime, then the users will be already be caught committing crimes more often. Is it just to account for their increased crime risk twice? Is treating the drug part as a criminal act, instead of focusing on the well, criminal part, even a practical strategy for deterring crime?


As for drug problems being about mental illness vs willpower, I think it's either and both. There isn't literally such thing as either. They are just ideas. The idea that it is possible to work through just about anything, if you try hard and smart enough, will probably get you a lot farther than the idea that you are a helpless victim of your brain's structure in most cases though.

That doesn't mean that treatment isn't a good choice in many cases; the mind is complex. If, through treatment, someone either learns to try through productive means, or the mental obstacles that they face are lessened, then that's great.

Chewy might take issue with some of my wording, but I mean that in a more abstract sense. Comparing mental illness to willpower is a pretty abstract venture.

[rand0m]

People don't understand, the problems of legalising drugs within our own community don't even stand up next to the problems we will be wiping off the map.

[Chewy]

I should be the one saying WTF.

You are picking and choosing segments of my posts to respond to read my posts as a whole.



I grew up with Bi-polar. I was diagnose with it when I was 11, but I never took medication. Everyday I would control my anger and emotions. At around age 15 I was able to become very socialable and when I was 17, I was no longer considered Bi-polar. I did this without drugs and all by self control and support from my family. I beleive people loose alot of faith in how powerful a human can really be and surrender themselves to plants. I'm gald that was your experince. I would say that its not the standard. Most respectable Doctors I know are rather reluctant to attach a label such as Bi-polar to a youth under the age of 18. There are many reasons for this, but what they have found has been youth are frequently misdiagnosed.

I also would not use your experince of Bi-polar as a template for all folks effected by Bi-Polar.

Children with bipolar disorder do not often meet the strict DSM-IV definition, tending to have rapid-cycling or mixed-cycling pattern.[29] The incidence in this age group has been traditionally held to be very rare.[citation needed] In September 2007, experts (from New York, Maryland and Madrid) found that the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003, and it was increasing ever since. They concluded that doctors had been more aggressively applying the diagnosis to children, and not that the incidence of the disorder had increased. The study calculated the number of visits which increased, from 20,000 in 1994 to 800,000 in 2003, or 1% of the population under age 20.[30][31]

Often other psychiatric conditions are diagnosed in bipolar children. These other diagnoses may be concurrent problems, or they may be misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder. Depression, ADHD, ODD, schizophrenia, and Tourette syndrome are common comorbid conditions. Furthermore some children with histories of abuse or neglect may have Bipolar I Disorder. There is a high comorbidity between Reactive attachment disorder and Bipolar I Disorder with about 50% of children in the Child Welfare System who have Reactive Attachment Disorder also have Bipolar I Disorder.[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder#Children

The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) provide general guidelines that can help doctors identify bipolar disorder in young patients. However, some studies show that youths with symptoms of mania (over-excited, elated mood)--one of the classic signs of bipolar disorder--often do not meet the full criteria for a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070903204848.htm

We also need to keep in mind that all bi-polar is not the same in fact there are 4 distinct categories.

That aside that is only your experince not everyone has that in fact the bulk of people do not, it has nothing to with will power. If it did Tom Cruise would be a leading mentor for addressing mental health issues.


Chewy might take issue with some of my wording, but I mean that in a more abstract sense. Comparing mental illness to willpower is a pretty abstract venture. I agree they are very much a abstract concept, however one of the things we have learned from addictions is that will power plays a role later on in the Maintenance Phase or remaining clean.

I know I have stated this before but I use more of my trauma counseling techniques in working with addictions than I do work around substance use. In fact I seldom deal with 'drug talk' other than the first two or three sessions.

[Mr.SelfDestruct]

People should be able to do whatever the fuck they want in their own house, as long as it isnt hurting/going to hurt anyone else. Its as simple as that.



Seems to work fine for some other countries. --- depends on what you mean by those, though. And besides that, it doesnt matter. Does the government control the market on people who grow their own tomatoes, etc?

Tomatoes are a far cry from drugs, and you know it. And tomatoes do have to meet government standards anyways, so they are regulated.

There are many drugs that ARE controlled by the government though. And you can bet that if they're going to control things like alcohol and nicotine, or codeine, fiorinal, and lyrica... they'll definitely control cocain, heroin, THC, and the like.

The big difference here, though, is that the controlled drugs that we DO have are highly regulated. I guarantee you'll never find a street version of an oxycontin 80. Even if cocaine were regulated by the government, it would still be mass produced in labs and still be available on the street. No prescription required.

If you want to argue that the government shouldn't control drugs at all: yeah, let people make their own decisions, sure. Just two weeks in the inpatient pharmacy has shown me several orders for detox meds going up to delivery and pediatrics. The problem is that the government needs to regulate these things because people are stupid.

[Chewy]

I guarantee you'll never find a street version of an oxycontin 80.Your joking right?

Organic Chemists with the right now how can synthesize Thebaine. They were able to make LSD... now that's a complex venture.

[Mr.SelfDestruct]

Your joking right?

Organic Chemists with the right now how can synthesize Thebaine. They were able to make LSD... now that's a complex venture.

No, I'm quite serious.

Oxycodone, as an 80 mg tab? Sure (of course, you're average person would probably OD on a single tab). Oxycontin is oxycodone that releases over time though, and IIRC, it's got a matrix based structure (meaning that even if you break it up, it still works on a delayed release). Pull that off in a street lab, and I'll be impressed as hell.

[kazuri]

Tomatoes are a far cry from drugs, and you know it. And tomatoes do have to meet government standards anyways, so they are regulated.

Obviously, but not in the context I was trying to say. Its a plant people can grow and sell. People grow and sell tomatoes locally all the time without going through the FDA.

BUT I was talking more along the lines of growing for yourself. A simple yearly tax to be able to grow your own weed would be fine.

[Mr.SelfDestruct]

Obviously, but not in the context I was trying to say. Its a plant people can grow and sell. People grow and sell tomatoes locally all the time without going through the FDA.

BUT I was talking more along the lines of growing for yourself. A simple yearly tax to be able to grow your own weed would be fine.

Pff, well marijuana, I agree that it's a joke that weed is illegal. Shit, aspirin is ridiculously more dangerous than marijuana, and that's available OTC (even though it wouldn't pass FDA standards today for OTC use).

[camjoe87]

Illness would suggest it's cureable by medication and it's out of the person control. You can never cure someone of drugs, they have to make the decision to quit.
Well you could give them drugs that alter brain chemistry which potentially can make it easier for them to quit ..

At least I thought there was a drug to treat nicotine addiction (among others), and I'm not talking about the gum/patch either.

[Mr.SelfDestruct]

Well you could give them drugs that alter brain chemistry which potentially can make it easier for them to quit ..

At least I thought there was a drug to treat nicotine addiction (among others), and I'm not talking about the gum/patch either.

Yeah, it's called Chantix (varenicline). It basically blocks turns off the signals telling you that you "need" some nicotine. Takes a bit for it to start working, two weeks I believe, but after that, the cravings are gone. Stop smoking around then, and keep taking the pill for a couple months. I think most people quit completely just two or three months in.

Admittedly, at cash value, 3 months worth is pretty steep (about 400 bucks), but you'll be done afterwards.

[Chewy]

No, I'm quite serious. Pull that off in a street lab, and I'll be impressed as hell. I don;t see it being far fetched at all. The fact is becuase its time released it rules out some of the value in street use, no value no need to make it. Thus far just about everything that can be abused has been manufactured.

[_jax]

keep drugs illegal

the government will ruin the drug trade

right now as it stands, if u want to smoke weed but you dont want to feel like you're wasting your money, you can do so. just buy in bulk and sell off to your friends and smoke the profit.

thats a true free market. show me anything else where you can do that. show me one other product where u can make ur money back no strings attached. fact is if u want anything else ur forced to pay for it in this country.

when u look at more serious drugs like crack the drug trade is a bit more harsh, but that's because of the serious money that is involved. for the most part the crack dealers and the crack fiends live in the same part of town. went to school together. just chose different life paths. the money stays in the community that's absorbing the blows of the drug game. how is it you think that we'll be better off if the fat cats sling crack to the fiends from way across town without ever having to see the effects of their trade? just seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

and on top of that, like it or not, the drug trade brings money to both sides of the law. how does the demand for law enforcement change if they no longer have the big bad drug dealers to chase? thats a whole industry wiped off the face of the earth, and a whole other industry dedicated to stopping that first industry also inevitably dissapears.

[Mr.SelfDestruct]

I don;t see it being far fetched at all. The fact is becuase its time released it rules out some of the value in street use, no value no need to make it. Thus far just about everything that can be abused has been manufactured.

The fact that it's time released keeps it from killing the average person. You don't think that has value?

It's also going to take one damned impressive street lab to make something that's time released at the microscopic level. Sure, I'll admit, it's possible.

But probable?

Now go find me one so I can eat my words.

[Chewy]

The fact that it's time released keeps it from killing the average person. You don't think that has value? not as an illicit substance.

It's also going to take one damned impressive street lab to make something that's time released at the microscopic level. Sure, I'll admit, it's possible.

But probable? I think you are rather confused as to how illicit drugs are manufactured, not all are cooked in small car trunk clandestine labs, like I said if this drug held illicit value it would more common place as a street drug.

There are a number of higher tech street labs that exist within North America however designer drugs are not limited to creation on that level, some labs in other countries like Mexico, South America, Asia, Europe hell even Africa manufactures these drugs. These labs are not run by third rate shade tree chemists many are full blown chemists or organic chemists employed for the the specific purpose of creating a counterfeit pharmaceutical. They are such a threat that Purdue Pharma L.P. has taken a rather drastic step in monitoring
OxyContin.

“Our objective in implementing these security features is to deter counterfeiting, reduce diversion, and help ensure the authenticity, safety, and integrity of our products,” said Aaron Graham, Vice President and Chief Security Officer for Purdue Pharma. “RFID technology provides the pharmaceutical industry with the ability to create an electronic drug pedigree, or tracking mechanism, that will lead to greater supply chain security and patient protection against counterfeit drugs.”http://www.purduepharma.com/pressroom/news/20041115-01.htm

Basically if its not a problem they would not be expending tis much cabbage in protecting their product.

Again I'd say that if OxyContin HCl controlled-release had a higher illicit value we would see knock offs on the street, instead the money to be made is in the pharmacies and knocks offs are sold there.

[Mr.SelfDestruct]

Hah! Oxycontin doesn't hold illicit value? Heroin addicts love the stuff! And the fact that they can take a single pill that will keep going for several hours only increases it's value.

It goes for between 50 cents a buck a milligram on the street.

It's extremely popular as a street drug. It's just not as common as cocaine because it's so much harder to get your hands on it, which, of course, increases it's value.

Pardue actually won a multi billion dollar lawsuit recently because of generic companies producing oxycontin before they were supposed to. Not only that, but Pardue's exclusive rights to the drug has been extended. It's caused all kinds of hell with insurance companies, since they would only cover the generic form, which is no longer being manufactured. Many patients had to hunt around at various pharmacies trying to find one that still had the generic form in stock. Plus, their personal hold on the drug doesn't have any meaning overseas. Hence the protection of their own product.

And once again, I say it has quite a bit of illicit value on the street. It's just much easier to make the shittier drugs and sell large amounts of those for profit than it is to make small amounts of the fantastic drugs and sell just a bit for some profit. That's why you don't see any home made oxycodone going around. The demand is definitely there, the supply just isn't.

[Son of God]

Organic Chemists with the right now how can synthesize Thebaine. They were able to make LSD... now that's a complex venture.

That's a poor comparison. There was nothing like LSD, and still only a handful of things remotely similar. When it was declared illegal the black market stepped in to keep it from going extinct.

Right now, no one's going to be making knock-off Oxy's since they stuff is legal, and available. And even if Oxy was completed wiped off the planet, there are viable alternatives - heroin, dilaudid, morphine, etc.