this is your war on drugs

[pvn]

[ 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?

[Taso]

[ 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 ]

I'd agree with this, unless there was somehow some random short supply problem with an important drug, then I could see how it would be important to have doctor's prescribing it when it is needed, as opposed to someone taking a pill for the flip of it.

Example (crazy example, I'm on no sleep)

Pharmacies are on an extreme shortage of codeine. Person A needs codeine because he just had back surgery. Person B wants codeine because he has a toothe ache. No competent doctor would suggest codeine for a toothe ache, but for the back surgery, it may be needed. Under this shortage, there aren't enough pills for everyone to be wasting...etcetcetc.

I don't know why there is a shortage, whatever, ya'll get the point, shyt.

[applejuicekid]

Taso,

Would you be up for the same type of regulation if instead of drugs it was hammers? If there was a shortage of hammers we wouldn't want people wasting them on using them to break things.

[Taso]

uhhh yeah, I guess? I havn't used a hammer in a long time, I'd give mine up to be used for hammer related emergencies.

...

No but seriously, if you say big axes instead of hammers, it'd be easier to relate. If there was a shortage of big axes, I'd definitly give mine to the local fire department, as I don't really need it.

Like I said, generally speaking I agree with what pvn said. We should all be able to buy all the axes, er, I mean, pills, we want.

[owsley]

A society without government would definitely have some sort of a group that certifies doctors in some way. In that society whoever sold codeine would probably prioritize how they distributed their codeine on what kind of condition you had, which you could prove by showing them a slip from your certified doctor. Kind of like the prescription system, only drugs aren't arbitrarily declared "illegal" for certain people to possess, and you can't get sentenced to decades in prison for some pills in your pocket.

It is possible that some pharmacy will decide "we aren't going to save our codeine for the back surgery patients, their money is the same as healthy people's", but that is a far fetched scenario. You can say the same thing about almost any good, if there was a shortage of computers should we make sure scientists can get them before other people? If we ran out of grass fertilizer should we make sure that NFL teams get first crack at the remaining supply so games can continue and millions of people can be entertained every weekend? Drugs are generally very easy to synthesize in the case of a true "shortage" and if there was that bad a need for codeine or computers or fertilizer, there would be a huge amount of money to be gotten for anyone would could make or find some more.

[applejuicekid]

taso,

I agree I should have used a better example. And while I'd be willing to give my ax to the firefighters I think a system that requires you to have a "prescription" for an ax would be ridiculous. But yeah we agree on the axes and pills for all!

[adios]

[ 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.

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.

[owsley]

Also, in an earlier thread someone brought up the question of why doctor's advice is binding but legal advice is not. When you enter into an insurance contract like the ones that make healthcare possible everyone involved has to agree to allow to let someone else decide what services are or are not legitimate. Otherwise a handful of people would demand ridiculous tests and surgeries that would destroy the system. Pursuing legal options doesn't require resources the same way that pursuing medical options does.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
A society without government would definitely have some sort of a group that certifies doctors in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have a government but some group decides to certify doctors. How do we choose this group?

[ QUOTE ]
In that society whoever sold codeine would probably prioritize how they distributed their codeine on what kind of condition you had, which you could prove by showing them a slip from your certified doctor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry this the "nanny" state in action for sure.

[ QUOTE ]
Kind of like the prescription system, only drugs aren't arbitrarily declared "illegal" for certain people to possess, and you can't get sentenced to decades in prison for some pills in your pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what happens when somebody breaks the rules set up by the group that sets the priorities for medical care?


[ QUOTE ]
It is possible that some pharmacy will decide "we aren't going to save our codeine for the back surgery patients, their money is the same as healthy people's", but that is a far fetched scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[ QUOTE ]
You can say the same thing about almost any good, if there was a shortage of computers should we make sure scientists can get them before other people?
If we ran out of grass fertilizer should we make sure that NFL teams get first crack at the remaining supply so games can continue and millions of people can be entertained every weekend? Drugs are generally very easy to synthesize in the case of a true "shortage" and if there was that bad a need for codeine or computers or fertilizer, there would be a huge amount of money to be gotten for anyone would could make or find some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever but I see this has turned into see how great AC is thread.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
you can't take any medicine you feel like

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? If the answer is to protect yourself, why does the same not hold true for law advice?