Could it be Merck, Pfizer, Bayer, and all the rest of them marketing "legal" drugs to anyone and everyone?\n\nAnd then we have the Federal Govt who has a "war on drugs", so major drug companies can collect their commision($$$$$$)
201177
The "War on Drugs" is the name for the actual "War on Untaxable Profit & Capital Gains."\n\nThe reason drug compaines have started reporting record profits is due the recent lifing of a ban on advertising on television.  Now prescription drugs can be advertised anywhere and in any form of media.  People are actually walking into their doctor's office and asking for a specific brand of medication, they may not even need.\n\nDoctors get incentives (money) to prescribe certain brands of medication over other brands, and it is all perfectly legal.\n\nSo the answer to your question would be:  The Doctor's Office
175548
Drugs are more powerful and could be used to self medicate If people wanted to.That would NEVER happen because the pharmaceutical company's would not let it.Its all about MONEY,Good Luck to you,"The smoker you drink" Take care!Alcohol is responsible for 50% of every thing considered negative in this country.And nearly 60% of the murders,and traffic deaths.Drugs don`t even come close to the destruction caused by booze!
488623
No, If somebody wants to get high they will find a way. Whether it is on OTC, prescription, or illegal drugs, they will find a way. \n\nThere is no need to to not inform people who might benefit, in order to keep people who might misuse information from knowing.
282966
because they figure since they are natural that they are not "medicine" and therefore feel better about taking it.  some of the things i think are ok but some people fall for a bunch of crap.  some of the commercials and things you see out there i honestly dont know how anyone would buy them.  im a pharmacy student and work at the hospital and you always hear the docs ask where some patients find some of these meds that they are on, some arent even legal here in the us, they buy them from canada and other places and its ridiculous, most of the junk they buy is from the internet and we just sigh.
54803
Understand the drugs themselves... right now the media and government seem to be throwing a bunch of BS scaretactic propogandsa at us...  Understand the TRUTH... then you can understand the "problem"
259856
Because drug companies are not looking for a cure, they are looking for a band aid pill.  Something that you have to buy over and over and over and over and over, called a "maintenance" drug.  They are the biggest drug dealers in the world.
673500
It is because of Greed plain and simple.\n\nThe Pharmaceutical has lots of money. \nOur Presidents are elected usually much by how much campaigning they do. The Pharmaceutical and Others like Exxon(oil) give a lot of money to their campaigns. So they are left alone. They don't bite the hand that gets them elected or who keeps them there. If we had a different way for the government to campaign without depending on these resources(like taxes)-maybe they would take action against them. But now most owe them favors.\n This is one reason we are one of the few who don't have Nation health. I think there is only 3 countries now who don't and we are one.\n And no there isn't a program for all-that is a myth that some believe. those who have major problems know.\n What can you do--always support Nation Health-yes more taxes-many countries pay it and survive (other myth-those other countries are bankrupt-some are but not just because of this). And not one of those countries do the majority of people want to cancel that benefit.
110590
The US and Canada drug authorities are completely different.  Same reason why over-the-counter Tylenol in Canada has codeine in it, but only available by Rx in the US.
577989
the FDA, the senators, and the doctors who work with the FDA profit from this. the FDA sold out a long time ago but now i'm actually starting to see change there. major news networks are actually doing stories on certain drugs and their harmful effects with out plugging some other drug at the same time. this wouldn't have happened even a year ago.
670708
I have always thought legalized drugs with heavy taxation would be a good thing. The wacko conservatives will never agree too it. Just like handing out condoms, they think it makes people become evil. They just don't get the point. Also, the drug cartels would fight it too.
595945
Well due to the dominant conservative ideology we have in the country, I don't believe that we can ever legalize drugs. Conservatives see legalization as a means of condoning its practice and use. Despite eliminating the flow of money towards organized crime, and essentially ending the "war on drugs," the decriminalization of substance abuse and legalized sales of drugs is seen as a ineffective solution.
467543
Pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrist have gone to bed to create one the biggest profit centers in the history of legal drugs. \n\nAsk yourself this question and really think about the answer. What kind of society drugs its’ children to force their compliance with the system? Drugging has become a tool of conformity and control. \n\nThe DEA found that methylphenidate had nearly identical effects on humans as amphetamines and cocaine. \n\nThis powerful stimulant, that has the highest abuse potential and dependence profile of all drugs that have medical usefulness, is prescribed mostly to children. By the mid nineties, methylphenidate sales leveled off at 11 million prescriptions per year. Around that time the sales of other amphetamines (primarily Adderall, used for treatment ADD and ADHD) increased from 1.3 million prescriptions in 1996 to 6 million prescriptions by 2000. According to United Nations data the United States of America consumes 85% of all methylphenidate production. Of this 85%, 80% is prescribed to children. Apparently, ADD and ADHD are not common afflictions in other parts of the world.\n\nIn 1985, 500,000 American kids were diagnosed with ADHD. Today, between over 7 million children in the United States are labeled with this disorder. \n\nWhat happened in the nine years between 1991 and 2000? In 1991, the United States Department of Education made children with ADD and ADHD eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. In 1991, kids diagnosed with ADHD or ADD became eligible and entitled to extra government funding for their schools. School districts across America now had a financial incentive to label kids with ADD and ADHD. \n\nIt is pretty clear that we have become a society that drugs its’ children for financial gain and to force compliance with the system. Schools have a financial incentive, but why would parents drug their kids? Some parents who resist are threatened by schools and social workers. They are told refusing to medicate their kids is akin to abuse. \n\nMany parents cooperate in the drugging of their children, because if their kids have a “disease”, it is not the parent’s fault. Behavior problems are the parent’s fault, while a disease is out of their control. Parents are labeling their kids, so they do not have to take the responsibility for their child’s behavior. This behavior may be nothing more than rebellion to conformity, but nonetheless embarrassing to the parents. Support groups for parents further these beliefs. Not surprisingly, groups like CHADD, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, are funded by Ciba/Novartis, maker of Ritalin. \n\nWorse yet, they are teaching these kids that they are not responsible for their behavior either. If they misbehave, it is the disease in control. Then they drug the kid and credit the medication for his good behavior. These drugged kids become nothing but shells of human beings, not responsible for themselves and addicted to powerful drugs.\n\nADD is not even a real disease. According to Merriam- Webster’s Dictionary, ADD is a syndrome of disordered learning and disruptive behavior that is not caused by any serious underlying physical or mental disorder and that has several subtypes characterized primarily by inattentiveness or primarily by hyperactivity and impulsive behavior or by the significant expression of both. There are no physical or chemical abnormalities conclusively associated with ADHD. \n\nDiagnosis of ADD comes from observation of the subject. How can you diagnosis a mental disorder, like attention deficit, by observation of physical activity? The people who diagnose children do not have any idea of the mental functioning of the subject’s brain. By the syndrome’s name it implies that the subject can not keep his attention focused, he has lack of attention. You could possibly say a person’s attention was not on a certain subject, but that does n
281502
He's not a part owner.\n\nBut I did love how you framed the question. I'm part owner in Dana Corporation-- I own ten shares of their stock. The makes me part owner.\n\nHow do you fight the government? You could use the Al Zaqawi method and blow something up. Or you could get a lawyer.\n\nAnd there's nothing wrong with generics. They are the same drug only cheaper.
142708
That's just one more side of all this problem, and the previous answer is rigth too.. The drugs find most of the consumer in the USA, and meanwhile in Latin America we haven't been able to have the economical growth needed, and that's a very profitable business!!!\n\nBut this is only a part of it, as i have been said, those lots of sides of the story should be known, studied, and solved TOGHETER!\n\nWhy don't we all take a break on this issue, as the congress men, and maybe we'll comeback with a whole bunch of information and good new ideas.lol.
47263
I'd guess from drug dealers.
337535
I think the idea is to punish those who are dealing LARGE AMOUNTS (like those selling to the US) and to not punish those who use it for personal use. Actually Cocaine, Heroine, and Marajuana are all useful Medicinal drugs, and were commonly used as such until Nixon.
645054
Should Governments Legalize and Tax Marijuana?\nExamining a Recent Study on Legalization\nThe war on drugs is an expensive battle, as a great deal of resources go into catching those who buy or sell illegal drugs on the black market, prosecuting them in court, and housing them in jail. These costs seem particularly exorbitant when dealing with the drug marijuana, as it is widely used, and is likely no more harmful than currently legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. There's another cost to the war on drugs, however, which is the revenue lost by governments who cannot collect taxes on illegal drugs. In a recent study for the Fraser Institute, Economist Stephen T. Easton attempted to calculate how much tax revenue the Canadian government could gain by legalizing marijuana. \nThe study estimates that the average price of 0.5 grams (a unit) of marijuana sold for $8.60 on the street, while its cost of production was only $1.70. In a free market, a $6.90 profit for a unit of marijuana would not last for long. Entrepreneurs noticing the great profits to be made in the marijuana market would start their own grow operations, increasing the supply of marijuana on the street, which would cause the street price of the drug to fall to a level much closer to the cost of production. Of course, this doesn't happen because the product is illegal; the prospect of jail time deters many entrepreneurs and the occasional drug bust ensures that the supply stays relatively low. We can consider much of this $6.90 per unit of marijuana profit a risk-premium for participating in the underground economy. Unfortunately, this risk premium is making a lot of criminals, many of whom have ties to organized crime, very wealthy. \n\nStephen T. Easton argues that if marijuana was legalized, we could transfer these excess profits caused by the risk-premium from these grow operations to the government: \n\nIf we substitute a tax on marijuana cigarettes equal to the difference between the local production cost and the street price people currently pay--that is, transfer the revenue from the current producers and marketers (many of whom work with organized crime) to the government, leaving all other marketing and transportation issues aside we would have revenue of (say) $7 per [unit]. If you could collect on every cigarette and ignore the transportation, marketing, and advertising costs, this comes to over $2 billion on Canadian sales and substantially more from an export tax, and you forego the costs of enforcement and deploy your policing assets elsewhere. \nOne interesting thing to note from such a scheme is that the street price of marijuana stays exactly the same, so the quantity demanded should remain the same as the price is unchanged. However, it's quite likely that the demand for marijuana would change from legalization. We saw that there was a risk in selling marijuana, but since drug laws often target both the buyer and the seller, there is also a risk (albeit smaller) to the consumer interested in buying marijuana. Legalization would eliminate this risk, causing the demand to rise. This is a mixed bag from a public policy standpoint: Increased marijuana use can have ill effects on the health of the population but the increased sales bring in more revenue for the government. However, if legalized, governments can control how much marijuana is consumed by increasing or decreasing the taxes on the product. There is a limit to this, however, as setting taxes too high will cause marijuana growers to sell on the black market to avoid excessive taxation. \nWhen considering legalizing marijuana, there are many economic, health, and social issues we must analyze. One economic study will not be the basis of Canada's public policy decisions, but Easton's research does conclusively show that there are economic benefits in the legalization of marijuana. With governments scrambling to find new sources of revenue to pay for important social obje