I've felt that the "War on Drugs" is a stupid hypocrisy for years. There is no doubt that it is the war on drugs, not the drugs themselves that causes the crime, the ODs, and just about every other negative aspect of the alleged "drug problem".

That's not what I'm outraged about today. At least, not any more than usual.

I have a bad back. I have 5 ruptured disks in my back, one of which was removed in a surgery about 12 years ago. Here's how that happened:

I was having pain in my right leg. I couldn't explain it. It became more chronic, and more severe. I tried to determine if it was related to some repetitive stress or some activity I was doing. It didn't appear to be.

I went to my doctor, who suspected this might be cyatic pain. He suggested I get a CT scan of my lower back to confirm his diagnosis. This made sense to me, so I chose to get the CT scan. It showed the damage he suspected. He then put me in touch with specialists to help me understand my treatment options. Surgery was recommended to me, but I was trying to finish engineering school.

I decided to delay the surgery, hoping I could get through engineering school and do it after graduation. The pain got more and more severe, and eventually immobilized me. I chose to have the surgery mid-term, and basically dropped out of college. This was a big decision for me, as you can imagine. I think you would have to agree that it was MY decision to do this. I decided the consequences of leaving school would have to be dealt with.

The surgery worked; the leg pain was gone. Unfortunately, I have lower back pain that I live with all the time. My back is very sensitive, and certain activities cause really bad back aches for me.

I was really impressed with how my doctor diagnosed what I thought was a leg problem as a back injury. I went back to him and told him about the lower back pain I now had. This was shortly after my surgery. He told me that it would probably always be with me, but that a mild muscle relaxant (cyclobenzaprine HCL, also known as flexorol) might help when it got really bad. He wrote me a prescription and I tried it.

The meds work, but they make me groggy, so I only take them when I'm hurting really bad and only at night. I've done this for over 10 years and it helps. I made the decision to try the meds, and I made the decision to use them only at night and only when I'm in severe pain. I think you'd agree that it was MY responsibility to make those decisions for myself, just like it was MY decision to have the surgery in the first place.

Over the years, I'd call my doctor and he'd renew the prescription for me. It is a "PRN", refill as needed, but prescriptions expire after 1 year. It expired again 2 weeks ago.

I called my doctor. They wouldn't let me talk to him, but I left a message asking for the renewal. He declined it. I called again and asked to speak with his nurse, which they wouldn't let me do. I left the nurse a message explaining the following:

- I've used this treatment successfully for 10 years.
- NOTHING has changed in my situation. My back is no worse -- I'm just out of my "back pills".
- I don't have health insurance and don't want to pay for a doctor's visit.

He refused again, saying that since he hasn't seen me in 3 years, he won't renew the script.

This is absolutely ridiculous. When I first say my doctor, I consulted him with something I didn't understand and he gave me advice. I chose how to proceed based on my respect for his advice.

This is different. I've been using this "treatment" for 10 years. I live with my back every day of my life. NOBODY is in a better position to know if the situation with my back has changed. I am keenly aware of the slightest change; I even know how weather affects my back.

It is clear to me that my doctor is requiring me to see him for reasons totally unrelated to my welfare. I can only guess what those reasons may be, but it is extremely obvious that my welfare is not the reason.

When a doctor does this, he changes the relationship from one where he advises a responsible moral agent who owns their body and assumes all risks of treatment to a relationship where the patient is a subject under the doctor's control. Worse than denying my status as a responsible moral agent, this allows the doctor to place interests above my welfare -- against which I have no recourse. Whether it is business reasons that cause him to compel me to pay for an office visit, his own fear of legal reprisals, or some other reason, the fact remains: he has violated the basic and fundamental principle of his profession -- that his patient's welfare comes first.

This is a profoundly immoral situation. Really think about this. It is a big deal. My doctor is not to be trusted to place my interests first. Neither is yours, because the system in which the doctor operates is inherently immoral.

This is the real horror of the absurd war on drugs. It turns citizens into subjects. Subjects of a priesthood of doctors who have a fundamental conflict of interest with their subject/patients.

It is as illegal for me to try to obtain this mild muscle relaxant as it would be for me to try to get dilaudid, vicodin, or reefer.

As our politicians claim to be protecting our freedoms, we willingly allow them to control what we eat and whether we choose to continue living. Are there really any more basic freedoms than those? They must be using some definition of "freedom" that I'm not familiar with.

People actually think that someone else is a better judge of how I need to care for myself and my back than I am myself! If you are someone who thinks this, consider this: who has to live with my back?

As Tony Soprano might say, "I'm being shaken down." Anyone who thinks this is OK needs to do some thinking. If you agree that I am being screwed, you may then need to rethink your position on whether I should be able to roll a fat one to get a break from my back pain. And why shouldn't I? It's my body. I assume all of the consequences. I have to live with myself. Period. Hold me accountable if I harm someone for harming them. I have the inalienable right to harm myself, if I choose to do so.

Morally, perhaps. But not legally. Not in the "land of the free".

Jim