Only because your article wouldn’t have any bite if you told the truth.
It is clear. Health Canada clarified already: it’s for research and prescribed use in rather limited cases.
The hack author wants you to feel a narrative that they’re going to just start selling cocaine to the public.
> In a statement to VICE News, Health Canada said Adastra is licensed to produce the drugs for scientific and medical purposes but cannot sell products to the general public.
Oh, so you do know. Rendering your earlier sentence wrong. In the same article.
In defence of VICE, their video arm is still one of the best outlets for drug related content. Their print arm, I could take it or leave it.
This seems to upset US politicians from time to time and cause diplomatic spats, they were adamant against the sale of it despite it being traditional in that part of the world. Punitive about it.
Now it is legal in Canada and not a peep. Tres Bizarre.
Wouldn't say the gap is vast, it isn't a very involved process.
Maybe you mean there is a vast gap between Peru and Canada. Few thousand miles that.
Decriminalization measure: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali...
Luckily, in Oregon, possession of small amounts at home is only a civil violation, so it's basically OK as long as you don't get caught. Even if you do, there's no jail time, only a fine, and IIRC the fine will even be waived if you pass a psychiatric evaluation.
Obviously, possession being legal means nothing if you obtain it illegally. But it's completely legal to buy research chemicals online for "research purposes". Then, even if you end up consuming it, the sequence of events is that you bought a research chemical (which is fine) and then a research chemical in your possession was also a psychedelic in your possession (also fine) once you used it (also fine).
-Emily
The problem started when someone took a bunch of those leaves, mixed them with a bunch of chemicals to create a highly concentrated substance.
https://www.lannett.com/products/numbrino/ https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/00...
We did a bunch of research on this when we started on amphetamines for ADHD treatment. Fortunately not meth, but dextroamphetamine.
-Emily
Just for the sake of adding to this comparison: it takes 300 kilos of coca leaves to make 1 kilo of cocaine[1]. The coca leaf tea to cocaine analog, is somewhat like comparing extremely diluted orange juice (which has a natural amount of alcohol) with Everclear (96% proof).
---
[1] And I'll note that 300:1 is the low end of the spectrum. I've seen ranges from 400:1 to 600:1 being more realistic.
It is also considered sacred and traditional by the indigenous. Probably for that very reason. Yet even at these low concentrations, US officials frequently demand it be outlawed.
Unless you're a Canadian drug company.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justin-trude...
"scientific and medical purposes only"
link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justin-trude...
Unclear what benefit there is to stopping people addicted to opiates getting those opiates cleanly and cheaply.
“Addicted to opiates” is a big spectrum. Someone dependent on a mild recreational dose can possibly continue like that for a long time if, and only if, they don’t try to escalate their dose. The issue is that the recreational value wears off quickly as tolerance sets in, which means they’re only taking the opiate to avoid withdrawals at that point. So addicts start increasing their dose, or they try to play games where they go into withdrawal for a while so they can get a small “high” when they redose. This is why addicts are transitioned to maintenance therapy on maintenance-specific medications.
Prolonged opioid use can also worsen pain due to counter-regulation in certain systems, which creates further desire to increase doses over the very long term. Vicious cycle.
For opiate users taking moderate to high doses, it’s not so simple. These will take a toll over time and the users simply can’t function at their jobs, their personal lives, or even in taking care of their own health. They often go through a period of illusion where they feel like they can be functional addicts forever and may fool friends, family, and coworkers for some time. However, the high doses will destroy their ability to function over time.
The idea that opioid abusers can be fine if they just have a perpetual clean supply doesn’t really pan out. Even chronic pain patients on purely therapeutic regimens with zero recreational value (post tolerance) have a litany of problems over the long term.
I don't see the point in gate-keeping drugs. Let darwinism run its course.
Cocaine is used as an anesthetic in some nasal and eye surgeries for example. Research and testing purposes also need clean standards to use for comparison.
If there is a domestic licensed supplier, and only one, Health Canada will likely force you to go through them and pay whatever they ask.
“They are only permitted for sale to other licence holders who have cocaine listed on
their licence, pharmacists, practitioners, hospitals, or the holder of a section 56(1)
exemption for research purposes,” the agency said.
"A Canadian weed company and a psychedelics company have received government licenses to make and distribute the drugs under certain circumstances."
So they evolved from organized crime to drug dealers.
For example, I am basically forced to take Vimpat, a DEA scheduled anti-epilepsy medicine. Due to the scheduling, I can only pick it up 2 days before it’s due for refill, and otherwise have to have a doctor provide me an early refill request. It’s like they don’t expect me to ever go on vacation or have a life. I feel chained down by this. The DEA treats me like a pleasure seeking drug addict. The sad thing is I am a drug addict, I just take it to stay alive, and don’t get any pleasure from this drug. If I don’t get it I’ll probably withdrawal and die. Also, who the hell is going to use a drug that costs $1400/month for pleasure?
I. Hate. The. DEA. For some of these epilepsy drugs the scheduling seems cruel and senseless. All it does is make life difficult for doctors, pharmacies, and patients. For what??? No one wants to take these drugs. It’s a joke that this stupid agency would even consider these to have some recreational value. Sure the benzos, but for the majority of them, no.
Congratulations on reaching your hundredth birthday.
You mean the one adopted for alcohol after prohibition started, and which made it so that we had to pass a Constitutional. Amendment to allow the substance?
We always had the choice to do that for other drugs to make it harder to legalize, but its probably a good idea we haven’t.
These agencies just have carte-blanche to pass laws based on whatever whim they might have. They set limits on things and decide what and how to regulate.
Unfortunately, big pharma talked to their congressmen buddies to limit the action of the DEA. (see Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_tea
> Owing to the presence of these alkaloids, coca tea is a mild stimulant; its consumption may be compared to consumption of a moderately strong cup of coffee or tea.
Why them and not drugs?
How are they different?
Edit: Found an article about it. https://nypost.com/2022/12/02/countrys-1st-magic-mushroom-sh...
Yet again with enough _protection money_ the feds go after the low hanging fruit.
See links posted upthread.
There is a deep Puritanism that ramifies through America. Suffering is necessary. Pain is necessary.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/16/against-against-pseudo...
There is basically a national registry that records when I buy Sudafed. But let someone even mention a registry for guns and people go nuts.
See also: now that drugs affect “rural America” and the burbs it’s a “disease” caused by a lax government. But when it was mostly affecting “the inner city” it was because of “poor morals” and absentee fathers (who were overwhelmingly targeted by the “War on Drugs”)
And yes I’m well aware that both political parties are culpable
In fact, someone who has a whiskey neat for lunch is likely going to get less alcohol than someone who has a pint from a microbrew. 16 ounces at 10% abv vs 1.5 ounces at 40%.
The only place I’ve ever gone to a bar where this is actually true is in Utah. Not to mention with the rise of craft beer even a beer isn’t a standard drink often as not.
After the CSA, the most notable legal instrument for banning constitutional substances was an administrative decision.
The correct answer is that in the 30s the courts started taking the position that the federal government could do things that weren't explicitly granted as within their powers, and most types of trade were now within "interstate commerce"
It's also generally just a wrong answer that misses big things like the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act in the 30s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosmet...