[badloginagain]

They mentioned in the article how they wrote it up as providing prescripted medication without a client-doctor relationship. The likelihood of someone buying these drugs for the purposes of abuse are likely much greater than some poor person looking for their brain medication.

The fact that the government later made one of the drugs being sold a controlled substance gives credence to such a theory.

Whether or not that says anything about the morality of law, I'll leave up to you.

[celticninja]

Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug and Methamphetamine is schedule 2. Alcohol and Nicotine are legal.

Let's not pretend that there is logic behind the controlling of substances by government and law enforcement.

[carboncopy]

There is logic but is certainly not uniformly applied!

[nickpsecurity]

Probably. Doesn't invalidate my claim. There's all kinds of people who go to the doctor to get drugs like these because it feels better that way. They just have to pay more and get it from specific people for it to be legal. Their motives, the drugs themselves... all the same.

Let's take it further. The drug you need is a cancer treatment that costs $100,000. The drug itself was paid for with a mix of tax dollars and private R&D that resulted in a patent. The patent at this point has paid off its private R&D plus plenty of profit. A Chinese supplier can make the same ingredients with a Le Roux-like company selling it to you. It's illegal to acquire that as the law says you must die or make that drug company richer.

Is morality and the law in alignment when someone is being murdered for someone else to make extra money? Or for people to do time for trying to save their life with a clone?