do u advocate the need of drug testing on animals and humans?
543063
For those of you that do not consider testing on animals is necessary, please contact me and I will put your names forward for the next round of clinical tests.\n\nYou can choose from Anthrax, Botulism, Aids, Lassa Fever, Ebola virus, and many others.\n\nStill interested?
20882
Yes, all drugs should be legal.\n\nMaking drugs legal would mean that they could be better controlled, or maybe even taxed.  The tax could be used to help people get off hard drugs.\n\nIn my opinion, governments should not have control over something an individual does to themselves.
792782
It is very sad that you feel the need to question the utility of animals. Perhaps you regard them with so little respect that they only have meaning to you in terms of their use. If you want to ask a good question about the usefulness or uselessness of animals then try this; how useful are you?
952143
they can if tested for but it is expenseve to do,,,\n most courts and jobs only test for meth;weed,cocane, and pcp and or lsd
942911
Why would you take a drug that is made specifically for veterinary purposes?
1161151
its good to volunteer but remember these drugs haven't been approved yet-human testing required to put on market for general public so  ask about side effects -if any known-some have been tested by humans to  some extent and need final human testing or only tested on animals----so all these drugs are being tested to see if safe to use.All drugs have side effects but human testing determines if  no drastic side effects occur-esp be wary and ask if can damage liver, kidneys etc.  Make sure you really want to do this and that once the inform you of the risk involved if money is worth it.It isn't a whole lot of money in most cases anyway.
573183
The closest thing/being to humans is animals, and testing products on animals allows humans to observe and control results without humans being injured.  I suppose we could start testing new technology on prisoners, but I hear they have rights, also.
825336
Drugs dogs are trained to find illegal drugs not aspirin or toys or anything else but drugs.So don`t worry
252077
there is nothing wrong with drugs themselves. any drug, if used properly, in moderation, and for a purpose other than just getting f*cked up, can be a usefull tool for expanding the use of the brain and seeing things from a different perspective (something that people should do more often). some of the most brilliant minds in history were drug users. i'm not saying there aren't risks; any tool used recklessly can cause alot of damage. give a kid a hammer and don't teach him to use it properly, and see what happens. windows get broken and maybe hands get smashed. give that hammer to someone old enough to swing it, and teach him the right way to use it, and houses get built. we should stop pretending that drugs have no value and start educating those who choose to use them. and i don't mean "dare". all i ever did in that class was draw joints in the hands of the cartoon characters in the d.a.r.e handbook. and i wasn't even interested in drugs at the time. to me, d.a.r.e. was just another pointless class i had to sit through while counting the minutes 'till the end of the day. big deal.
482504
NO, It is wrong and injurious to health. These drugs causes cancer and other health problems. I advice you not to take anything like that because it will be in your interest otherwise you will loose yourself. TAKE CARE................
781819
Well, humans need animals and plants for food, raw materials, entertainment and other related functions.\n\nHumans can help plants disperse their seeds and can help feed certain animals.
891367
I am against athletes being tested for drugs, unless every student in the school is tested.  Quite simply, I find it discriminatory against jocks.  What about the science fair entrants, the art contest, the home economics shows, etc.?  What's good for one is good for all.\n\nI am in favor of mandatory drug testing.... for all students.  Those caught with drugs in their system will have their parents informed, and/or the juvenile authorities.\n\nWhat I do not like is when something like that is done in a discriminatory fashion.\n\nSue
380996
This answer involves you selling your body and drugs.... but legally.   There are many medical studies that require guinea pigs to test drugs for side effects before they are released to the public.  Sometimes this can pay pretty well and it doesn't take much time.
123184
It is depended on following matters.\n1) The purpose of testing.\n2) The advantages and disadvantages to the animal.\n3) The effectness to the equilibrium of global environment.
336613
Yes.\nFor now it is the only relatively accurate way to assess \ntoxicity of a new substance to living organism.\nIt should be controlled and kept to minimum but no other way, unless those that say "No" would agree to replace suffering animals.\nI simply can't understand people who think that it is wrong to experiment but OK to eat or take away they habitat, poison they environment but when it comes to using them for saving lives of others - no way.\nSimply visit hospital near u and see the suffering of those that cannot be saved - answer is clear (at least to me).
1178570
Most definitely, but not in a paranoid sense. Its human nature, heirarchy, divine right. Humans are a crafty sort, when you group the crafty rich ones together, they realise how much they enjoy their lives walking (or in some cases steam rolling) over humanity. I personally believe that were all being slowly poisoned in one form or another, with the pharmaceutical companies and medical sector to benefit... check out knowmore.org and look at bayer and dow's track record alone... (The part about toxic/carcinogenic chemical legislation is scary) have a bucket and towel handy. But to answer your question less rhetoricaly, the over-population crisis is and has been slowly spiraling out of control without any form of boundaries. What better culprit than cancer to take care of that problem?  (oh, the rate of cancer a hundred years ago compared to now would definitely support that)
975116
Well, firstly I think you need to define what you mean by "experimentation". Most of the people who have posted answers seem to have assumed that it refers specifically to experiments involving drugs, other chemicals or invasive techniques.  Maybe that's what you're assuming too, but there are many other fields of science that use animals for experiments to find out about their behaviour or ecology.  Some of these studies might involve wild animals, captive bred lab animals or wild animals caught for the experiment.  So now someone might think "well, ok but it's just the cruel medical experiments that make animals suffer that we are wanting to consider".  But it isn't that simple.  Some behavioural experiments might involve, food and water deprivation, handling stress, allowing animals to fight and injure / kill each other.  And similarly, a lot of medical and neuroscience research is carried out in such a way that the animals involved have a reasonable quality of life and a relatively humane and painless death.  So banning ALL experimentation on animals (except small rodents and insects) would clearly damage our ability to learn about our world, the ecosystems in it, the diseases that kill us and a whole range of other important things that science is currently investigating.  However, the other side of the coin is that allowing an open slather on all animal research would clearly expose many animals to cruel, painful procedures that yield only superficial gains for humans and for animals (tests of allergies to cosmetic products springs to mind as an example of cruel research yielding little gain).  What I'm trying to illustrate here is that, like most moral and political issues, animal experimentation is complicated and contains a lot of grey areas.  There is no one answer that is correct and appropriate for all situations.  You must way up the cost to animal (in terms of pain, distress and quality of life) with the potential benefits of the research (progress in disease treatments, better understanding of ecology and environment, for example).  And of course not everybody will agree on how costs and benefits would way up.  Imagine some experiments that work in such a way that for every monkey who dies (humanely) an extra person will be saved by the treatment.  Would you consider that reasonable?  What if the monkey died a painful death instead of a humane one?  What if it were ten monkeys to every person saved, or a hundred monkeys?  What if it were a thousand people each monkey could save? What if the monkey couldn't save anyone's life but could just prolong the lives of sick people for a while? What if it wasn't a monkey, but a cat or a rat?  What if there were other research options available, but they might take 6mths longer, or six years longer before the treatments are available?  Even if everybody was considering all the same aspects, people would differ in where they draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable.  So for this complicated issue, maybe the best "bill" is one that provides guidelines and instructions on how research should be evaluated, but leaves the decision of whether or not each particular experiment goes ahead up to a group of relevant people who understand the costs and benefits and can make an informed decision.  I hope this helps you have an interesting discussion in class.