Careful; You can poison yourself with water.

I support the idea that some man made chemical compounds have been shown to do harm to users and their families and should therefore be made illegal or banned. Chemical compounds that qualify for banning in America are Agent Orange- a dioxin, Thalidomide- a birth defect causing tranquillizing drug, Fen fen- a heart damaging diet drug, as well as the chemical compound known as aspartame- (see "dorway.com" for more on aspartame).
I don't ascribe to or agree with the idea that herbs are drugs. I do acknowledge herbs can be abused if taken in contexts which are not therapeutic. Not therapeutic means acting against cogent process in the body. An example would easily be dosing ones body heavily with cannabis before a night of binge drinking. The drinker may not vomit when alcohol poisoning is imminent. Such an anti-nauseant effect with cannabis during binge drinking could and has resulted in death. A misuse does not warrant a total herbal ban such as was the case for many years with cannabis. Should it be used by border line psychotic persons- probably not. But neither should coffee be taken by nervous people. Should we ban coffee because it causes acid indigestion in folks already churning stomach acid? I don't think banning coffee would help people who seek more acid secretions.
Politics are not the most rational criteria for banning anything. Politics is part of the banning process just the same though. So in conclusion, the idea of making some drugs illegal has utility. Banning herbs is less justifiable, Ma Wang comes to mind here. Overdoses of ephedra have been linked to fatal run away catalytic reactions in abusers. So, drop or pervert the context of a substance's cogent use and you can poison yourself with water.

Once you have to face annual drug tests for work, it begins to sink in that some substances are not acceptable no matter what they do or don't do or even when they are used or abstained from. This is a condition in which work places evade the nature of substances and their effects to establish arbitrary points of control on their adult employees.

Until Congress gets the drug screen annually, this arbitrary control at the workplace as well as drug and herb policies at large can only grow more tyrannical and more irrational and arbitrary. Once those in Congress have to think twice about what they're ingesting we'll see coherent rules about drug and herb screening and what a narcotic is and is not filter down where you and I live, but not until then!

Views: 123

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Clarence Dember on March 18, 2011 at 4:55am

Michael ; I think that the trend of classifying all
things used by the body as nutra -
suticals under the auspices of the various
government acronyms vying to
eliminate our choice to select raw garlic we
grow instead of irradiated garlic or irradiated
fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, herbs grown in China or
genetically engineered and patented, packaged and pasteurized

"for our safety " is where the battle over food is being waged at

the moment .
  I know that the enzymes in raw un-patented vegetation are
an anathema to the poor membrane selectivity of cells in

human tumors.
I don't want to allow allow big gov to railroad the
society into diets of processed food lacking this
bio-availability and bio-diversity so essential to
health.

Comment by MCT on March 12, 2011 at 8:54pm

I am not suggesting that the DEA or the government have good definitions of these concepts. I do think yours are decent, so far. This is what I was trying to get at, the essential definitions of these things. Like I do not think that a drug depends on whether it is used by medical professionals or whether the government makes it illegal or taxes it. Do you? So far, I am convinced that a drug is a chemical of some sort that effects a particular change in the body. I think you seem to be partial to the essential aspect being that is affects a more complicated or even enzymatic change. But, physicians commonly use oxygen to affect a change other than the normal physiological benefit. Nitrous oxide is not so different than oxygen and dilates blood vessels, a lot like a peripheral calcium channel blocker, like nifedipine. And we can cause the secretion of epinephrine from the adrenal gland by causing pain or we can just inject some into a patient's vein. Physicians also use cocaine in the hospital therapeutically even though it is otherwise illegal. I'm OK with defining drugs as chemicals that come from outside the body to affect a change inside the body. And because of this, I would suggest that herbs that do this, do this because of the drugs within them. Or we could say that we can obtain drugs from extracting molecules from plants and animals. I think you are defining herbs objectively (properly) and I am defining drug properly. The DEA and the government do not define things objectively, with only essentials. It's, like you said, propaganda. Typical politics. My goal is to really know what is what. 

So, I think herbs are plants that have within them a chemical which can have an affect on the body or on another substance. Drugs are molecules can be made or extracted from other life and given to affect a change within another life form. Endogenous epinephrine, I think is a hormone, and exogenous, is a drug, but then again estrogen is given as hormone replacement therapy. So maybe a hormone is a molecule that affects a change in a particular organ as to increase or decrease some function of that organ, whether it comes from within or from outside. And maybe a drug is a molecule that affects any change no matter where it comes from or what it affects. 

Comment by Clarence Dember on March 11, 2011 at 8:44pm
Bullets?
Comment by Clarence Dember on March 11, 2011 at 8:42pm
Fluoride, Thimerisol, Amalgums of Mercury, radioactive seed implants, ...Anthrax vaccines, etc.
Comment by Clarence Dember on March 11, 2011 at 8:37pm

So, the people who define what a drug is and is not must have plenty of guns so that nobody questions why we use sanctioned drugs and avoid forbidden drugs?

Comment by Clarence Dember on March 11, 2011 at 8:26pm
Michael: it seems drugs are products which have been abstracted (by man) from any elements or compounds with or without  plant origins. Herbs, are whole plant origin foods usually raw with the enzymes present. In addition some elements combine or are combined to produce compounds needed by the body to sustain life. As you say - drugs have no calories. Drugs act to cause a therapeutic effect once properly prescribed to a patient by a health care professional such as a physician. Herbs are often taken without the advise of a health care professional.
Comment by Clarence Dember on March 11, 2011 at 8:17pm
Cocaine hydro chloride for instance, although derived from the leaf of the coca plant is an anesthetic used in surgery while the coca tea made from the same leaf is not a denatured chemical compound used in medicine.  I imagine that is hard to understand.
Oxygen is an an "element" in the atmosphere which oxidizes other elements on Earth. We need it for aerobic respiration; but a drug (?) ; not exactly what biologists or chemists would say. Crack is not a compound used in medicine but then the DEA calls it a drug. The DEA also calls Cannabis a useless narcotic, although no narcosis is possible with Cannabis Sativa. Alcohol is classified as a beverage but the therapeutic dose is one drink a day. Tobacco a taxable good. But, what's good about it? It's a vaso-constrictor and destroys the optic nerve. So, my question to you is are you conflating DEA dogma with terminology found in chemistry? Or, are you mistaking Drug Enforcement Agency propaganda for definitions of things in biology?  (The periods in odd places arrive via my phone text software. I hope I have corrected them all.)
Comment by MCT on March 11, 2011 at 10:34am

CD,

So, even though oxygen and saline are often used therapeutically by medical professionals, it is not a drug? And crack, not used by medical professionals, isn't a drug?

 

"Herbs are whole plant origin foods usually raw with the enzymes present."

-What?

 

Herbs are food? Do you also mean that any chemical that does not come from a plant is not a drug? Or that herbs aren't herbs if they are cooked or if only a part of the plant?

 

I think your grammar in that last comment is confusing.

Comment by Clarence Dember on March 11, 2011 at 10:22am
Michael: it seems drugs are products which have been abstracted from any plant origins by man of course. Herbs are whole plant origin foods usually raw with the enzymes present. As you say - drugs have no calories. but act to cause a therapeutic effect once under the administration of a health care professional such as a physician.
Comment by MCT on March 10, 2011 at 11:12pm

CD,

Well, I would say that of course drugs are not food, necessarily, because food entails calorie production by metabolism. Fuel. But if a substance acts to affect a change in some amount, then in as far as it does that, be it food, water or Ambien, it is a drug. I guess it depends on how you define drug. What essential characteristics do you think a substance must have to be called a drug? Or herb. I think herbs are products of plants that have a number of possible uses including taste, mood altering, metabolism enhancing, color, smell, the point, I guess, is herbs are plants that we put in stuff we ingest for reasons other than calories, even though we can gain calories from most herbs I'm sure. I think drugs are just the chemicals that affect a change. They can be designed by man, already in him (or her), in food, herbs, water, air and so on. 

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service