this is your war on drugs

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am certainly aware that an audit by the DEA of pharmacists or doctors is a huge incentive to prescribe less controlled substances... but at the same time, I have my own personal beliefs about why society shouldn't have narcotics aplenty. So, I believe there should be some regulation of potent, addictive drugs.

But this is a side note to my prescription argument, and obviously I will have to agree to disagree with people who have different basic assumptions on what degree of drug availability society should have.

[/ QUOTE ]

and exactly why should your personal opinions be forced on others?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to link you to another post in this thread that addresses the very points you make.

here

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely with this, you are saying that putting drugs in the hands of medical experts would result in a distribution of drugs that is no different than letting people self-prescribe?

Your argument hinges on this on assumption (you are saying doctors are corrupt -> they need oversight -> oversight is done by medical non-professionals -> whats the point of doctors) yet you take this as a simple fact with little explanation.

I might add that I'm not just talking about controlled drugs. Unregulated controlled drugs like narcotics/benzos might be corruptive to some prescribers if left solely to their discretion

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I can prove that I'm right, as evidenced by the fact that the DEA spends a lot of time and resources hunting doctors they think are simply giving away pain pill prescriptions. If you don't provide government oversight of the doctors, then anyone will get any drug they want at any time, because many doctors will set up a practice that gives you any prescription you like no questions asked. In other words, it's not possible to achieve what you think the prescription system is supposed to achieve, namely making sure that only trained medical professionals are allowed to make the decision about drug use. It turns out that untrained laymen are making the decisions, which is no better than making your own decisions. In fact, these untrained laymen often IGNORE the advice of doctors, when you yourself are probably going to actually get some advice before buying the drugs you think you need.


[ QUOTE ]
, but some people in this thread have argued for getting rid of the prescription system completely. And while I lean libertarian, I think that is a ridiculous stance to take.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain why?

natedogg

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Mandatory prescriptions exist because the average citizen does not have the medical training to properly dose, avoid interactions and know contraindications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why most people wouldn't do it without a prescription anyway! Sorry, your argument doesn't hold much water.

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am certainly aware that an audit by the DEA of pharmacists or doctors is a huge incentive to prescribe less controlled substances... but at the same time, I have my own personal beliefs about why society shouldn't have narcotics aplenty. So, I believe there should be some regulation of potent, addictive drugs.

But this is a side note to my prescription argument, and obviously I will have to agree to disagree with people who have different basic assumptions on what degree of drug availability society should have.

[/ QUOTE ]

and exactly why should your personal opinions be forced on others?

[/ QUOTE ]
They shouldn't? Did you even read the second paragraph? The one where I explicitly state that I understand others may fundamentally disagree and I'm ok with that?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Drug use will increase slightly, crime will stay the same, the prison population will decrease for a while, then go back to the same levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no and no. Not only do you not have anything to back up this assertion, but all the evidence that IS out there completely refutes this.

[ConstantineX]

Is this too unlikely for some people? People make moral tradeoffs, mainly in what they feel comfortable with. They might feel uncomfortable about the infiltration and possible death by addiction drugs, so instead society condemns poor people to jails and blighted inner-cities where the majority of the populace doesn't have to deal with them. This alleviates the mental anguish of the most important in society - but it's democratic!

I'm not really making a normative case that this is right or wrong. Just stating somthing.

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to link you to another post in this thread that addresses the very points you make.

here

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely with this, you are saying that putting drugs in the hands of medical experts would result in a distribution of drugs that is no different than letting people self-prescribe?

Your argument hinges on this on assumption (you are saying doctors are corrupt -> they need oversight -> oversight is done by medical non-professionals -> whats the point of doctors) yet you take this as a simple fact with little explanation.

I might add that I'm not just talking about controlled drugs. Unregulated controlled drugs like narcotics/benzos might be corruptive to some prescribers if left solely to their discretion

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I can prove that I'm right, as evidenced by the fact that the DEA spends a lot of time and resources hunting doctors they think are simply giving away pain pill prescriptions. If you don't provide government oversight of the doctors, then anyone will get any drug they want at any time, because many doctors will set up a practice that gives you any prescription you like no questions asked. In other words, it's not possible to achieve what you think the prescription system is supposed to achieve, namely making sure that only trained medical professionals are allowed to make the decision about drug use. It turns out that untrained laymen are making the decisions, which is no better than making your own decisions. In fact, these untrained laymen often IGNORE the advice of doctors, when you yourself are probably going to actually get some advice before buying the drugs you think you need.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know and agree that the DEA is extremely draconian and strict about certain drugs, and that is because the War on Drugs has gone too far... but you're only talking about controlled substances. The DEA doesn't regulate or give two [censored] about the other 97% of drugs doctors prescribe. So for the most part, it is in fact the medical professionals who have the final say in who gets what.

I had a problem mostly with your idea that doctors are a revolving door rubber-stamp for whatever prescriptions people want... there are plenty of checks against that which are completely unrelated to the War on Drugs. Pharmacists, insurance companies, state medical boards and the DEA (in a non-anal controlled substances way) all make sure doctors aren't prescribing irresponsiblity or out of their practice.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am certainly aware that an audit by the DEA of pharmacists or doctors is a huge incentive to prescribe less controlled substances... but at the same time, I have my own personal beliefs about why society shouldn't have narcotics aplenty. So, I believe there should be some regulation of potent, addictive drugs.

But this is a side note to my prescription argument, and obviously I will have to agree to disagree with people who have different basic assumptions on what degree of drug availability society should have.

[/ QUOTE ]

and exactly why should your personal opinions be forced on others?

[/ QUOTE ]
They shouldn't? Did you even read the second paragraph? The one where I explicitly state that I understand others may fundamentally disagree and I'm ok with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

But you still support prohibiting people from deciding what substances they will put into their body? Am I misunderstanding your argument?

[fmxda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mandatory prescriptions exist because the average citizen does not have the medical training to properly dose, avoid interactions and know contraindications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why most people wouldn't do it without a prescription anyway! Sorry, your argument doesn't hold much water.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you would let those who are ignorant or reckless endanger themselves or their children? Bear with me, I think you would agree that in a vacuum this is a negative consequence that could be easily avoided.

In addition, you are saying is that most people would use a prescription for the complicated/dangerous drugs anyway. So essentially, you want the freedom to self-medicate yourself with tame stuff like steroid creams, fairly unaddictive painkillers, etc. I would say that this is more of a reason to move some of these to OTC instead of letting loose the floodgates.

In summary I see pluses in the utility gained from having the personal freedom to take the medicines you want, but these are mitigated by the fact that many people would be getting prescriptions anyway, and that others would be suffering from avoidable death/injury.

Also IMO, rampant use of prescription antibiotics is a big negative externality because of the resistance it breeds with overuse and bad dosing.

[ConstantineX]

FWIW fmxda you are arguing with those who don't accept externatality arguments in public vaccination. I'm not sure there is progress to be made.