[adios]

[ 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? Could be something else I don't know. But if you have the freedom to administer any drug to yourself that you want you certainly aren't required to consult with a physician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you're not required to consult with a physician. But why wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding with a question to my qeustion. The only person that gets away with that with me is my wife.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, just because I no longer REQUIRE a "doctor's note" to get medicines doesn't mean that I won't consult with them to find out what I should be taking. I'm not going to suddenly turn stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but you don't have to if you don't want to. Neither does anyone else if we do away with prescriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what the problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say there was a problem? I made an observation.

What I note about this article whose link was posted by natedogg in his OP:

1) This is a one sided story.

2) The guy wrote prescriptions illegally and got caught.

1) and 2) make it an unremarkable story. Apparently my interest in wanting to know both sides of the story i.e. the prosecutions side and the defendents side is not valid because there can only be one side to this story that I should be interested in.

[/ QUOTE ]

The story serves as a springboard for discussion about more general issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think there is much point in limiting our discussion to specifically one guy's circumstances who I'm sure none of us knows or cares about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I ask you to limit your discusssion?

[ QUOTE ]
And many of your responses in this thread have been about more general things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Originally I responded that the circumstances described in the story didn't make much sense. Then someone posted that the guy had forged a doctors signature on prescriptions. To which I stated that I'd like to hear the other the side of the story. Natedogg responded that he shouldn't have been on trial to begin with. To which I inquired as to why he thought that way and what it boiled down to was that he believes prescriptions are unnecessary and he agreed to make a post about why. I thanked him for his efforts.

People responded to my posts with statements questioning the difference between laywers and doctors; their beliefs about doctors etc. and I simply responed to their responses to mine. Many people asked me questions, some inquired as to what my problem is etc. So for whatever reason it's seems like they wanted to talk about a lot of other things. So what?

[ QUOTE ]
You are ALSO talking about the merits of this story but i seems like you mention that a lot when you dont have a response to more general inquiry.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what general inquires are you referring to? Simple question for you, can someone be opposed to the "war on drugs" but support prescriptions for certain medications?