[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their expertise is there to guide you, to point you in the way of the information that you need. Personally, I can't imagine a scenario that I'd NOT listen to the doctor, but I shouldn't be prosecuted for it if I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'd be ok with decisions to totally ignore the advice of the doctor and requisition any drug that someone felt like getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to speak for anyone but myself, but yes.

If you think otherwise, please explain what you think makes doctors and lawyers different. I mean, more than "I don't see that being the same as writing prescriptions." WHY is that not the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't understand your question. If the question is as follows:

How is ignoring a doctors advice and being able to requisition any drug you want different from not having a prescriptions?

The answer is they're really not different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

[ QUOTE ]
If the question is:

How is ignoring a doctors advice different from ignoring a lawyer's advice?

That's easy, you can't take any medicine you feel like while you do have the right to represent yourself in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. We know what the legal status quo is, the question is to find the JUSTIFICATION for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I merely commented on the story that:

a) I haven't heard both sides of the story yet.

b) That undertaking illegal activities is risky and undertaking risks has a downside.

c) a) and b) make this an unremarkable story.


I think we're getting to the real point of natedogg's post i.e. the argument as to whether or not medicine and medical care should be regulated in the U.S. the way it is. Of course this includes the idea of doctors issuing prescriptions for drugs.

Not sure why I've been appointed by the posters in this thread as the one to defend the government's position and the U.S. laws regarding drugs and medicine. I suppose it's due to the fact that I don't feel particularly outraged by a one-sided account but that seems ridiculous on it's face.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, there is no difference between what you now claim this thread is about and the "war on drugs." The thread has ALWAYS been about this, because this is what the war on drugs is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy wrote prescriptions illegally. When I think about the war on drugs I'm thinking about the time period when Nixon first made this declaration. Subsequently court rulings and laws followed that were/are used to fight this "war." Many of these rulings and laws people have viewed as an infringement on individual rights. As far as I know forging a doctors signature on prescriptions has been ilegal a lot longer than when Nixon made this declaration.

[ QUOTE ]


And you havent been appointed anything. You've made some arguments, some people have responded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made some arguments that this is an unremarkable case and the responses have been to basically defend my position regarding government laws and regulations on medicine. I'm actually ambivilant on the laws regarding medicine. Can't understand why people want me to defend government policy when I find a case unremarkable. Actually I think I do understand but I'll leave it at that.

[ QUOTE ]
Of COURSE this thread is about how medicines and drugs should be handled in the US....the thread is titled the War on Drugs, thats what the war is about, and presumably we all understood it was referring to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, at least for me, when people refer to the "war on drugs" people are referring to Nixon's declaration in 1971, the establishment of the DEA in 1973, laws and court rulings such the forfeiture of assets established by law in 1978, the rise of the Columbian drug cartel in the 80's, the interdiction efforts of the US government during this time period, etc. Don't think this really has that much to do with US government regulations on medicine, how medicine is practiced, and the designation of which drugs should be issued by prescription. The "war on drugs" to me anyway is more about government efforts to stop illegal drug use and how they've encroached on individual rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does. Heroin, cocaine, speed, all of these are drugs that are commonly prescribed and regulated by the FDA. All of the things you are talking about are directly related to the topics in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws have changed significantly since Nixon's declarations and the punishment for breaking the laws have changed significantly. I'm not saying that this thread has nothing to do with Nixon's declaration, the establishment of the DEA, the forfeiture of assets, etc. but writing prescriptions illegally has been against the law a lot longer than that. Also prescription drugs have been around a lot longer than Nixon's declaration. If people want to do away with prescriptions altogether I see the "war on drugs" as basically a peripheral issue. We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.