RE: Tim's friend's mildly retarded son
At 6:44 PM 3/15/96, Blanc Weber wrote:
The point is that it is not right to prevent, stifle, suffocate, the liberty to use one's own resources, to act at one's own discretion and make one's own choices in regard of one's own particular circumstance, to make independently the judgements necessary to determine the truth or falsehood of a statement, or the efficacy of a drug - i.e., it is not right to have to "give it up" to the State, allowing no one else to engage in the mental exercise and follow-through.
.. Blanc I hope I'm not the only one here who thinks so.
How could you be? Since I was the one who cited the example, I clearly am opposed to the current monopoly on judgment the FDA enjoys. As to Asgaard and his claim that the FDA is to be trusted, he is welcome to trust them. I don't think they are _dishonest_, merely in thrall (*) to special interests, drug companies, and, above all, to bureaucratic stodginess. (* Asgaard should be happy that I am using a word derived from Old Norse, "thrall," as in "enthralling." A thrall was a slave in Icelandic and Old Norse.) His speculation that my friend's mildly retarded son is not helped is unknowable to him. In fact, the nootropic in question, Piracetam, is sold in Europe (and Mexico, as I noted), and elsewhere, for the treatment of Alzheimer's, dementia, and to alleviate mild retardation. My friend thinks it gives his son an improvement from, say, an IQ of 70 to perhaps an IQ of 75. Apparently this is an important difference, so much so that when his supply of Piracetam (nicely packaged from Glaxo Pharmaceuticals of England) ran out, and the FDA had tightened shipping rules and he was unable to order it through the mail from his usual Canadian source, he felt the strong need to drive to Tijuana to buy his son a significant supply. (A few years ago I also bought some nootropics in TJ. I felt no effect. My friend thinks the effect is greater at the impaired-end of the spectrum, which actually fits with the prescribed-usage patterns noted above.) Whether my friend is deluding himself or not, it is not for men with guns to tell him he may not buy something to consume. The "drug laws" are nothing more than "dietary laws," and have virtually nothing to do with public or personal safety. If safety was the issue, then the drug ethanol, which kills at least 40,000 Americans a year would be outlawed while marijuana and narcotics, which kill far fewer (even when police raids, overdoses, and illegality-related crimes are included) would not be the focus of drug laws. Tobacco, which kills an estimated 400,000 a year is the winner. (The statistics I saw a few years ago were easily memorizable: tobacco: 400,000, alchohol: 40,000, drugs: 4,000.) Don't think I am advocating illegalization of booze or cigarettes. Free people are free to consume what they choose. (The issue of driving while impaired, or operating heavy machinery, or posting to the CP list while impaired, is a separable issue. We don't illegalize alchohol, we illegalize drunk driving. And my drug-using acquaintances are drastically less likely to be "DUI" with marijuana or LSD than drinkers are with alcohol.) We are not free when someone tells us which foods and herbs are legal to eat, and which are not. (I'll spare the usual stuff about how the Founders smoke a pipe of cannabis now and then, how "canvas" comes from the Dutch word for this herb, how special interests got hemp and "reefer" outlawed, and how the effects fell mainly on the poor and inner-city folks.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
As to Asgaard and his claim that the FDA is to be trusted, he is welcome to trust them. I don't think they are _dishonest_, merely in thrall (*) to special interests, drug companies, and, above all, to bureaucratic stodginess.
I could write an answer to this (about that I only said to trust FDA until there exists an alternative web of trust and reputations in the pharmaceutical business; that truly diseased people are not in the mood for researching the competence of a 'doctor' or 'healer' but are happy that entering a clinic guarantees that the guy examining them is a physician authorized by a non-profit entity of long-standing integrity and not a comlete quack; that the physicians, who are bombarded with manipulated information from the multinational drug companies would be at a great loss without independent trustable second opinions; and about how it would take quite some time to build up an alternative, private structure without bureaucratic stodginess - and even about the hypothesis that basic medical care might be counted together with justice and national defence as best paid for by involuntary taxes in the best compromise for total anarcho-capitalism that we might see in our lifetimes) but I won't :-) because of the off-topicness of the topic.
(* Asgaard should be happy that I am using a word derived from Old Norse, "thrall," as in "enthralling." A thrall was a slave in Icelandic and Old Norse.)
The substantive 'tral' (with double dots over the a) and even more the verb 'trala' are used in current Swedish. I commend your versatile and exact use of the American-English language. Your posts are always a pleasure to read (and learn from, for a reader with another native tounge).
His speculation that my friend's mildly retarded son is not helped is unknowable to him. In fact, the nootropic in question, Piracetam, is sold in Europe (and Mexico, as I noted), and elsewhere, for the treatment of Alzheimer's, dementia, and to alleviate mild retardation. My friend thinks
For a good (in my opinion) review on nootropics, see: http://www.damicon.fi/sd/nsa-sd-article.html (courtesy of Alta Vista) For comparison, Sweden has around 2,000+ prescription drugs. Germany has 20,000+. This doesn't mean that Germans are healthier.
Whether my friend is deluding himself or not, it is not for men with guns to tell him he may not buy something to consume. The "drug laws" are nothing more than "dietary laws," and have virtually nothing to do with public or personal safety. If safety was the issue, then the drug ethanol, which kills at least 40,000 Americans a year would be outlawed while
That's another issue. One problem is that the overall mortality is 100%, in the end. The long-term side effects of alcohol and tobacco are not that bad compared to many potent pharmaceuticals that FDA approves of, for cautious use in diseased persons, after risk/benefit analysis (morphin, cytostatics, immuno-suppressives). The political question, if a (healthy) individual has the right to use (recreational) drugs of his choice, really isn't centered around safety. Even if there was a completely harmless opioid, central stimulant or psychedelic drug available, strong forces would act against legalization out of moral or religious convictions ('God created man to suffer, so we shall suffer').
winner. (The statistics I saw a few years ago were easily memorizable: tobacco: 400,000, alchohol: 40,000, drugs: 4,000.)
These figures would look a bit different if 200,OOO,OOO Americans regularly used crack or heroin.
We are not free when someone tells us which foods and herbs are legal to eat, and which are not.
I generally agree. But I have a slight problem with the concept of Death Pills (f ex cyankalium) sold in any store, under various brand names, for better profits: Instant Nirvana, God's Face, Bye Bye Bella, Moon's Reincarnation. In these days of designer drugs, the consumer would have a lot to gain if FDA (or a private entity with a similar reputation) approved new recreational drugs before they entered the market, avoiding tragedies like the Parkinson epidemic (in California, wasn't it?) caused by MTPT. Asgaard
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: [...]
it gives his son an improvement from, say, an IQ of 70 to perhaps an IQ of 75. Apparently this is an important difference, so much so that when his [...] (A few years ago I also bought some nootropics in TJ. I felt no effect. My
Headline: Drugs Fail to Raise Tim May's IQ to 75 Simon // "Bad journalists live for moments like these" --- They say in online country So which side are you on boys There is no middle way Which side are you on You'll either be a Usenet man Which side are you on boys Or a thug for the CDA Which side are you on? National Union of Computer Operatives; Hackers, local 37 APL-CPIO
participants (3)
-
Asgaard -
Simon Spero -
tcmay＠got.net