My main issue is that drugs given on prescription are given by people who have a medical background. It's not like everybody had made medicine studies. I wish it was as simple as getting the right information. But unfortunately it isn't. I'm only a student and I've seen already seen too many times the result of people thinking they could diagnose and treat a disease, but turned out to be wrong. For me, medicines whose use is restricted to people who are ill should keep this restriction. That's all I wanted to say. We will never agree on that, but I'll still answer some of your (rhetorical) questions, because I wasn't dodging points and attacking on semantics, rather focusing on a minor issue of a minority of nootropics while trying to understand your point of view.
just because some people fail to do a little research before they intake a chemical(or exercise!), no one should be allowed to intake that chemical?
Taking a chemical necessitate more than "a little bit of research", that's why people have to undergo long studies before prescribing medicines. Relying only on the indications of the "big book of medicines" (here it's called "Vidal", I don't know in the US nor in Canada) is certainly not enough (and can even lead to severe mistakes). Knowing how the molecule works, how it's done, the pKa, dilution and dosage form are part of what enables one to have the right judgement while taking into account the patient, and give an appropriate prescription. The law acknowledges these competences. But it's far from perfect, that I can agree (so many drugs being misused, I can't imagine what it would be if anybody could buy anything they wanted).
Explain to me, please, why we should be allowed to harm ourselves with steel, but not with other combinations of elements?
Because people don't risk to be forced to use kettlebells. People have the right not to be forced to take a medicine. I'm thinking of veterinary medicine and the issue of remnants in meat here. If there weren't legislations for that, one would still be eating antibiotics when eating meat (well one still do in some places I guess, I don't know the legislation everywhere). If these medicines were available to everybody, there would be no way for vets to regulate the use of medicines that leave remnants in meat or milk. Of course one could argue the solution would be to be vegan, but there is still the issue of remnants in feces, that can reach water. It's not really something one can control easily.
Did you read that quote I put in the animal testing thread about how all of the biggest scientific breakthroughs(medical included) were made by accident, actually attempting to do something different?
Yes and that doesn't mean most of the molecules synthesised nowadays are made by accident. On the contrary, most of the research is based on finding new applications of existing molecules.
We find out we had been wrong about medications all the time and sometimes millions of people's lives are ruined because of it. Doctor's should have the right to do this to people, but people shouldn't have the right to do it to themselves?
It would have been worse without doctors. Imagine thalidomide. With an average of 90 000 medicine boxes sold per month in Germany when it was available without prescription. Then the use was restricted and it was only available on prescription (and in some countries such as Austria it was on prescription only). It was advertised as a miracle drug. At the time people didn't know of teratological effects. If it had been available in the same countries it was available, but without prescription, I can't imagine the number of victims. It wouldn't have been their fault. People would have had no mean of knowing what was inconceivable at the time. Now people know that when pregnant one has to be careful.
Prohibition ensures that anyone competing with big pharma is labled a criminal and, moreover, a despot.
That's a very sad thing indeed. Lobbying isn't such a big thing here as in the states, it's not really part of our culture, but I don't think it prevents some things of existing. They are certainly less obvious and at a smaller scale though. The pharmaceutical industry is not very liked here and many denounce it. Competitors against the pharmaceutical industry aren't labeled as criminals here, on the contrary, they are encouraged. On TV it's forbidden to make ads for prescribed medicines, and most of the ads you'll see are ads for herbal or homeopathic products without prescription.Acupuncture and homeopathy are recognized as medical professions here and more than a half of the population use homeopathy here. I didn't know about lithium, here lithium is used in oligotherapy and I've never hear anything against it so it's interesting to read. Alternative medicine is very present here, maybe because we have a long tradition of bonesetters that is still vivid and which people tend to trust more than doctors, I don't know. Funnily I think France is the country with the highest consumption of psychoactive drugs in Europe, so maybe that's why our equivalent of "Big Pharma" does nothing against alternative medicine, there are already many people buying drugs.
Cultural differences. I always forget to take them into account.
"You can jump off a bridge, should bridges be illegal? You can take a fork and jam it into your Loving eye, should we outlaw forks? Let's nerf the world!"
I'd rather quote "let's make a law to forbid people to be morons" (popular quote whose origin is lost). Well some people would be able to sue the bridge architect and the fork designer so one must be cautious.
I thought you were going to neglect these parts of my post? I guess those parts make up the brunt of it, being that you based your argument on legality, atleast for confirmation.
On the contrary, I didn't want to base my argument on legality. I find this a bit dull, that's why I only evoked it. Then you brought the issue of legalization of drugs when I only intended to talk about prescription medicines listed in the wikipedia article (whose use is very strict, modafinil can only be prescribed by neurologists and psychiatrists here). Drug legalization is a whole debate in itself, which I'm not fond of to be honest. I had it too many times, had to play the devil's advocate too many times (I've never understood why language teachers would want to debate about it when everybody advocated it), and watched it too many times.
You can still keep prescriptions and only reimburse those who are buying their medication on prescription, can't you?
The whole point of medicine without prescription is to buy it without prescription. With the healthcare deficit here nobody would allow reimbursement of drugs without prescription. I think the only time I got reimbursed medicine without a prescription was because I was going to use it for an allergy test (otherwise I wouldn't have bought it).
Let's do some testing and the more of a health concern posed by a substance, the more taxes we'll stamp on it=no mess with universal healthcare. If you can see any other mess it would make, I'd like to hear about it.
Who will do the testing ? Who will supervise that ? Who will pay that ? How people with health problems necessitating the most expensive meds will do ? What if health concerns are discovered later ? What about getting the meds from another country for cheaper ? What about mandatory vaccines ? Also, people are already paying for healthcare, I doubt they will accept more taxes.
How does this make sense to you?
The same way some of what you said made sense to you I guess.
What's that horse in George Orwell's Animal Farm whose response to any hardship was 'I will work harder'? That horse was awesome.
We both know how he ends though.
Funny that you say that, because that's what I answered when I was told I would never make it to the school I wanted to go in.
Hey, I care about others. The fact that I don't want to illegalize personal choices means that I don't care about people?
I was only referring to this :
I wouldn't even care. I'd just do what I had to do, complaining is mental capacity wasted.
Complaining about the choices of individuals is mental capacity wasted. Better?
Yes much better. Involving Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine wasn't necessary. (I know a bit about them, we had history classes at school).
This is not anything like complaining about people taking drugs. You are never going to be able to change that.
Little currents make rivers. I believe the evolution of mentalities is more efficient than any law can be. People reduce the quantity of antibiotics they take after all. Of course I will do next to nothing, but I'll still try.
nothing I write on Subeta is comparable to Dostoevsky
Nothing I write either. I'm happy you took the time to read my answer. As for me, I'm in the middle of Shakespeare's Henry VI and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. Popular, I know, but that's not something that distracts me from the writing. The Captive Mind is on my list, I've postponed it far too much.
I'd like to remind you that you're the one who came into my topic for a debate
Oh I know. I didn't see what was the debate about so I raised an aspect of the question that seemed debatable.
Do you think it is the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error?
Whoah, again a debate within the debate (that is already a debate within the debate).
How should I reply, my post is already lengthy... I'll answers with some quotes (maybe not 100% accurate because of translation) that summarize my position.
"Law must have authority on men, and not men on law." Pausanias.
"It's forbidden to forbid." Motto from may 1968 protests.
"The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation." Article 3 from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.