|
|
|
|
#1
11-24-2007, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: this is your war on drugs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I guess what you're saying is that anyone should be able to get any kind of drug/medication anytime they want at anytime. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [/ QUOTE ] If you start with that belief then a few other things follow. Will get to that later. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] BTW my wife had breast cancer in the late nineties and I was forced to break the law in obtaining pot to get her through chemo. [/ QUOTE ] ^^^ And this is why. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree totally that this is justification for doing away with prescriptions more or less. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Haven't heard anything about what his doctor in NJ said. Haven't heard anything about what doctors in Florida said. Haven't heard or read anything about what came out at the trial. Sorry but I think this is a one sided report so I'm reserving judgement. But it sounds to me like this probably an unremarkable story most likely. [/ QUOTE ] What the doctors think is irrelevant. They don't own the man's body. [/ QUOTE ] If you believe that prescriptions should be done away with I agree that the doctors beliefs are irrelevant. I don't share that view though. [ QUOTE ] I was reading something recently that compared doctors to lawyers. Lawyers, while they deal with incredbly important issues (sometimes even involving life and death), they only play an advisory role. Clients always have the freedom to proceed against their lawyers' wishes or without consulting a lawyer at all. Doctors, however, take a parental role, with the power to deny a specific course of action to one of their patients. Why should this be the case? [/ QUOTE ] Because they've studied medicine and have an in depth knowledge that the vast majority of people don't have. They have the expertise necessary. [ QUOTE ] Why shouldn't someone be allowed to go against his doctor's advice and take such-and-such medication? [/ QUOTE ] See above. 
|
|
#4
11-25-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The folly of prescriptions
Most people don't really think of prescriptions as part of the drug war, but they are. The irony is that prescription laws are intended to put medical professionals in charge of your health care decisions but they immediately devolve into government oversight of your health care by non-medical professionals, as I'll show below.
First, what is the point of this system? It's that we all know you are a dumbass and you can't possibly figure out which pill you need, so many of them are held behind the counter until you get special approval from your doctor. We want to make sure that a knowledgable professional is directing your decisions so that you don't kill yourself. This is classic paternalism but even so, that's not even the biggest problem with this system. The problem is that if you really truly just empower the doctors to make the call on prescriptions, anyone will still be able to get any pill they like, because many doctors will run their practice as a revolving door for any drug. There is no way around this, if the doctors hold the power. So under a prescription system that gives the power to doctors, the end result is that you just walk in and pay for whatever prescription you like, just as if there were no doctors. In this scenario, the doctors are just parasitic middle men between the producer and the consumer, with their sweet gravy train mandated and protected by the govt. And you know what we libertarians think of that! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] To solve that problem, and to ensure that the prescriptions are all "legitimate" (whatever that means), you have to *disempower* the doctors! But what good is that? It undoes the entire point of the prescription system in the first place. Today we have the head of the DEA, local prosecutors, and politicians with more discretion over your medical prescriptions than your doctor. If you don't realize that the DEA is hounding pain practitioners then you're not paying attention. This is why prescriptions are a farce. Prescriptions only result in your health care decisions being made by unqualified bureaucrats, vote-grubbing politicians, and power-tripping law enforcement grunts. You might say, well the government just needs to set the rules based on a qualified doctor's association but that only removes the problem by one step. That is what happens now and the govt often ignores that input anyway! The government has the final say on what is considered a legitimate use of these medicines and that final say is made by totally unqualified individuals. natedogg
|
|
#5
11-25-2007, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The folly of prescriptions
I've said before that I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs. Regarding medicinal drugs, I would keep the FDA, but make its role advisory. Unapproved drugs would be use at your own risk. Those with a significant abuse potential would be handled like liquor, sold by licensed stores similar to liquor stores. Over-the-counter drugs would be handled pretty much as they are now. Prescription drugs would be labeled as such, but you would be able to buy them, with the proviso that you assume the risk of doing so. If you die or get ill through use of a prescription drug (or an unapproved drug) that you use without prescription, you (or your spouse or relatives if you die) don't have any right to sue the manufacturer or the pharmacy that sold you the drugs. Same if you mis-diagnose yourself and take the wrong medication. Insurance companies could choose not to pay for the use of unprescribed prescription drugs or unapproved drugs -- their choice.
We already have an unregulated medicinal market -- herbals and supplements. Most of these are crap, but some work (I find zinc lozenges very helpful in reducing the severity of colds).
|
|
#6
11-25-2007, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The folly of prescriptions
[ QUOTE ]
I've said before that I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs. Regarding medicinal drugs, I would keep the FDA, but make its role advisory. Unapproved drugs would be use at your own risk. Those with a significant abuse potential would be handled like liquor, sold by licensed stores similar to liquor stores. Over-the-counter drugs would be handled pretty much as they are now. Prescription drugs would be labeled as such, but you would be able to buy them, with the proviso that you assume the risk of doing so. If you die or get ill through use of a prescription drug (or an unapproved drug) that you use without prescription, you (or your spouse or relatives if you die) don't have any right to sue the manufacturer or the pharmacy that sold you the drugs. Same if you mis-diagnose yourself and take the wrong medication. Insurance companies could choose not to pay for the use of unprescribed prescription drugs or unapproved drugs -- their choice. We already have an unregulated medicinal market -- herbals and supplements. Most of these are crap, but some work (I find zinc lozenges very helpful in reducing the severity of colds). [/ QUOTE ] CoRed Under your plan, there would be absolutely no need for an FDA, even if only in an advisory role. If the FDA were dissolved tomorrow, dozens of for-profit drug testing organizations would pop up, simply because there would be a huge demand, not only among end consumers, but among insurers. Some of these organizations would be better then others, so insurers could provide their customers with a list of respected drug testing organizations making it clear that if you buy X medication, that has been approved by Y testing company and that has been prescribed by a doctor, then we will insure it. Even if this confused customers, Doctors would be well aware of the new rules, and would steer customers in the right direction. In order for a new drug to gain approval status by the FDA, a drug company must pay on average a billion dollars to go through all the testing hoops. Insurers could put pressure on private drug testing companies to provide good information as to which drugs are relatively safe and at the same time, keep ridiculous costs down. Also, the herbal market isn’t completely unregulated, ask anyone who swore by androstenedione.
|
|
#7
11-26-2007, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: this is your war on drugs
The OP really troubles me, and here's why. I don't like people using these arguments, because they're not commonplace.
Before you link up three or four stories to prove me wrong, hear me out. The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with recreational drug use? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest. But lets be honest here, using arguments like the story in the OP are no different than rabid pro-choicers dragging out stories about twelve year old girls who were raped and inpregnated by their fathers. Does it happen? Sure! Statistically, what percentage of abortions are performed because of that reason? Less than 1%. The statistics are almost identical for those incarcerated for prescription drug and marijuana offenses who were using for medicinal purposes. I'm against the war on drugs, but lets be against it for the right reason, and not drag out some strawman argument about a situation that is a statistical blip on the radar of the overall picture.
|
|
#8
11-26-2007, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: this is your war on drugs
[ QUOTE ]
The OP really troubles me, and here's why. I don't like people using these arguments, because they're not commonplace. Before you link up three or four stories to prove me wrong, hear me out. The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with recreational drug use? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest. But lets be honest here, using arguments like the story in the OP are no different than rabid pro-choicers dragging out stories about twelve year old girls who were raped and inpregnated by their fathers. Does it happen? Sure! Statistically, what percentage of abortions are performed because of that reason? Less than 1%. The statistics are almost identical for those incarcerated for prescription drug and marijuana offenses who were using for medicinal purposes. I'm against the war on drugs, but lets be against it for the right reason, and not drag out some strawman argument about a situation that is a statistical blip on the radar of the overall picture. [/ QUOTE ] Good post. I feel like one sided accounts are nothing more than attempts at manipulation. Edit: Out of curiosity what do you think regarding prescription drugs? Should we have them? Sort of an open ended question and I realize that you might believe that the system could be improved so I'm not saying it couldn't be improved upon. I'm just asking you about the practice of having some drugs available only via prescription. I also understand if you choose not answer due to the risk of facing a "firestorm" from some posters.
|
|
#9
11-26-2007, 10:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: this is your war on drugs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The OP really troubles me, and here's why. I don't like people using these arguments, because they're not commonplace. Before you link up three or four stories to prove me wrong, hear me out. The fact of the matter is, 98% of people currently incarcerated for drug offenses are pure, recreational users. Do I have a problem with recreational drug use? Hell no, marijuana is pretty much harmless, and hard drugs kill people and I look at it as natural selection at it's finest. But lets be honest here, using arguments like the story in the OP are no different than rabid pro-choicers dragging out stories about twelve year old girls who were raped and inpregnated by their fathers. Does it happen? Sure! Statistically, what percentage of abortions are performed because of that reason? Less than 1%. The statistics are almost identical for those incarcerated for prescription drug and marijuana offenses who were using for medicinal purposes. I'm against the war on drugs, but lets be against it for the right reason, and not drag out some strawman argument about a situation that is a statistical blip on the radar of the overall picture. [/ QUOTE ] Good post. I feel like one sided accounts are nothing more than attempts at manipulation. Edit: Out of curiosity what do you think regarding prescription drugs? Should we have them? Sort of an open ended question and I realize that you might believe that the system could be improved so I'm not saying it couldn't be improved upon. I'm just asking you about the practice of having some drugs available only via prescription. I also understand if you choose not answer due to the risk of facing a "firestorm" from some posters. [/ QUOTE ] I personally don't care either way, my only concern concerning prescription drugs, is that unlike your corner dealer, Pfizer has the money and resources to run huge ad campaigns, and target those too stupid to consult a doctor regarding medical care, causing them to unintentionally hurt themselves. As to people who knowingly abuse prescription drugs, as long as I don't have to pay for their rehabilitation and general welfare, have at it!
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
