In a documentary released a couple of years ago, a federal
official against the use of GHB commented that "although it has
shown to be quite helpful to those suffering from terminal
cancer, we cannot allow it to be distributed to them, as we do
not yet understand the long-term effects". I know a couple of
terminal cancer patients who had a few things to say about the
long-term effects of serious tumors, radiation treatments, etc.
I do not feel that just living a country where adults are
permitted/denied random risks arbitrarily out of a sense of
tradition or commerce means that this is automatically the way
things should be. I believe in letting society make its own
decisions, and if it can't handle that--develop and education
system that works!
--Katrina
Steven B. Harris wrote in message
<6hf6m9$pub at sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>...
>> I'm a libertarian-- I think drugs should be legal. But we
don't
>live in a country where we allow adults to take risks of this
sort,
>except with alcohol, and that's only by long LONG tradition.
I'm sure
>the society isn't ready for GHB, pharmacologically safer than
alcohol
>though it may be (and certainly is). I'm REALLY sorry to have
to make
>that conclusion, because it's such an intensely interesting
drug.
>> Steve Harris, M.D.