Posted by Elizabeth on April 19, 2002, at 14:10:07
In reply to can heroin ever be safe ? (even without alcohol)?, posted by Iago Camboa on April 19, 2002, at 4:49:10
I have to wonder how closely you read the article that has you so upset and offended. What is it specifically that you're taknig issue with? In the actual article, that is, not just the title.
Keep an open mind. People who are so rigid in their political beliefs (and this is a political opinion, not a medical or scientific one) that they can't bear to hear arguments that support opposing beliefs, it just might be that their beliefs are too weak to stand up to criticism. Anyway, it's generally good (and mentally healthy) to be open to change (or at least, to have the capacity for change).
The pharmacological properties of a substance are not dependent on the law. This should be obvious, but to many people it's a potentially "dangerous" proposition. But in any case, it's hardly fair to insist that the *US* antidrug laws capture the "truth" when other Western countries have different -- in some cases radically different -- laws. The drug diamorphine (known in the USA as heroin) is legally available in the UK, for example, and is used as an analgesic.
Diamorphine is a semisynthetic derivative of morphine. Pharmacodynamically, it's a nonselective opioid receptor agonist, like morphine. It readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, acting more rapidly than morphine. Because it is short-acting, it's best suited to the treatment of acute rather than chronic pain. It is a very powerful drug, often effective even for people who have grown tolerant to other very strong opioid analgesics. I have a hard time with the idea of refusing to provide diamorphine to a dying person for whom morphine no longer works, on the grounds that they could become addicted. But maybe that's just me.
The essay behind the link you gave was very reasonable, actually. Certainly it doesn't fall in any of the categories of speech that are sometimes considered okay to censor (in free societies, that is): it's not pornography, incitement to violence, libel, fraud, harrassment, etc. It's an opinion, and it's even backed up by some sound reasoning and medical research. Furthermore, it's political speech, which is considered especially important to protect -- a free society doesn't have laws against criticizing government policy or saying things that are controversial, and no government can be considered "free" if it censors the certain opinions on the grounds that they are controversial or are opposed to government policy. This author has a right to express these opinions, and we have a right to read them. If the USA ever does start censoring this kind of material, we might as well burn the flag and the Constitution.
The idea of allowing access to this material only to certain professionals is interesting, especially since the article appears to have been *written* by a non-professional! I'm curious to learn why you would wish to do this. In any case, though, governmental limits on who can access this type of material would be just as illegal as censoring the essay entirely. All the citations in the essay are from books and journals that are available to the public, and it doesn't reveal any classified information. It may be hard for people who aren't very well educated to understand some parts of the essay, but that's no more a ground for censorship than is its criticism of government policy.
I really am startled that something like this makes you so angry. I'm sure that many people disgree with it, but it's just somebody's opinion. May I ask if you have some personal involvement in this issue?
-elizabeth
poster:Elizabeth
thread:103502
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020416/msgs/103556.html