#272465 - 18/12/2005 07:09
I am completely outraged
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272466 - 18/12/2005 07:29
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Well, while I'm with you in general, I have to point out that maybe your doctor has a reason for wanting to see you. Maybe he has a new treatment he'd like you to try. Even if it's just a different medication, I'm sure that his malpractice insurance makes him schedule an office visit, if it's not a basic tenet of medical ethics. For that matter, maybe his insurer is now making him see patients before renewing prescriptions. Your point about the "War on Drugs" is no less valid because of those things, though. And while I can understand the idea behind restricting potential recreational drugs, why do things like extra-extra-strength ibuprofen prescription-only? I can understand them being restricted so that pharmacists can make people know the dangers behind misusing them (though taking four of those is not any different than taking a handful of ones you don't need any license for), but why make them inaccessible?
Which brings me to my other point, which is that it would certainly be (stupidly) illegal for you to obtain the Flexoril without a prescription, it is most certainly less illegal than the others you list, as it is an unscheduled drug, while Vicodin is Schedule III, Dilaudid is Schedule II. and marijuana is Schedule I.
Edit: Actually, if I understand the law correctly, as an unscheduled drug, it would not be illegal for you to possess your Flexoril without a prescription, only that it would be illegal for someone to dispense it. Which, I suppose, is how the Internet prescription drug trade works. Sounds a whole lot like our 18th Amendment now that I think about it.
Edited by wfaulk (18/12/2005 07:36)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272467 - 18/12/2005 07:38
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Bitt, excellent points. A couple of thoughts: As I was thinking about it, illegal is an all-or-nothing thing. Sort of like pregnancy.  You make a good point that the punishment is harsher depending on the chemical properties of what I obtain and intend to eat. If the doctor has an alternative treatment, why didn't he just say so? For that matter, why can't that be handled over the phone? I think you're right about the doctor's motivations. This is probably due to legal or insurer requirements. But that is precisely my point. All reason dictates that this is a matter between me and my doctor, or, more accurately, it is my own issue and I choose to obtain a doctor's advice. NOTHING should be above the patient's interest in the doctor/patient relationship. In reality many things are, which is proof that the system is broken without getting into personal opinions about so-called "recreational drugs", like tobacco or alcohol. Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272468 - 18/12/2005 07:45
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
And while I can understand the idea behind restricting potential recreational drugs, why do things like extra-extra-strength ibuprofen prescription-only? I can understand them being restricted so that pharmacists can make people know the dangers behind misusing them (though taking four of those is not any different than taking a handful of ones you don't need any license for), but why make them inaccessible?
In the UK you can only buy normal ibuprofen in packs of 16 over the counter. We are still working our way through a bottle of 500 that we bought in the US when we were there a couple of years ago...
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272469 - 18/12/2005 07:58
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Well, ostensibly, the reason that those rules exist is, ultimately, to protect patients. There are, I'm sure, frivolous lawsuits against doctors, but the ones that his insurer is probably more worried about are the ones that are perfectly legitimate. And if the doctor performed an exam, those problems are less likely to occur. And there is no reason, I don't suppose, that it couldn't be handled over the phone (I think this is the way some doctors work in deepest Alaska) but he'd charge you the same amount. It's still the same use of his time.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272470 - 18/12/2005 08:00
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Someone was telling me that in some US state that the only legal place to buy beer is from a bar, and that the bars are only allowed to sell a case at a time, which means that if you're having a party, you have to go to the bar with your friend, have him wait outside to guard the beer as you wander in and out, buying one case at a time.
How does that work in regards to your 16-only ibuprofen rule?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272471 - 18/12/2005 09:43
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2489
|
You can get beer from supermarkets and licensed shops. As much as you like!
Edited by Phil. (18/12/2005 09:43)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272472 - 18/12/2005 10:58
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
My own rant on the subject. I hate that people with legitimate needs for mediciation (like my wife) get treated like criminals because they can't live without the drugs. Every so often my wife goes through a phase where she starts to worry that her pain isn't real and she's just addicted. At that point she'll try reducing her medication drastically and the end up spending the week in bed because of the amount of pain she's heaped on her body. Living with back pain for the rest of your life is hard enough without adding insult to injury.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272473 - 18/12/2005 12:20
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Speaking of back pain: Anyone in your situation needs to read this book. Chronic back pain is nearly always curable, without surgery -- and surgery nearly always only makes things worse. The problem is, not many doctors seem to know or accept that, and even fewer modern doctors seem to have the slightest clue about curing back pain. Oh, and another (cheaper) book as well.
Cheers
Edited by mlord (18/12/2005 12:22)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272474 - 18/12/2005 13:17
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
It's different state-by-state. That may be the case where you live. It is where I live. But not everywhere.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272475 - 18/12/2005 14:45
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
Someone was telling me that in some US state that the only legal place to buy beer is from a bar, and that the bars are only allowed to sell a case at a time, which means that if you're having a party, you have to go to the bar with your friend, have him wait outside to guard the beer as you wander in and out, buying one case at a time.
How does that work in regards to your 16-only ibuprofen rule?
I guess if you want to top yourself with OTC pain killers you have to just visit a few different stores (or hit a large supermarket where you can visit a few different checkout operators).
Of course a study has since shown that ibuprofen poisoning went up after the legislation came in (though aspirin and paracetamol poisoning fell):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7474/1076
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272476 - 18/12/2005 15:11
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Suicidal deaths from paracetamol (acetaminophen in the US -ed.) and salicylates
Really? People commit suicide with Tylenol and aspirin? Surely they could find something over there better to do it with than by liver failure. No OTC sleeping pills?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272477 - 18/12/2005 15:50
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
I think I am right in saying that there are no OTC sleeping tablets in the UK (excepting those herbal ones that seemed to have zero effect the one time I tried them).
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272478 - 18/12/2005 16:35
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Hehe, as far as alcohol is concered, come to Louisiana. You can buy wine, beer and hard liquor when you buy your gas. Oh, and yes, we DO have drive-through daiquiri stores. In fact, there's one near me that is ONLY drive-through. They give you a 32 oz cup filled with the daiquiri of your choice. It has a lid on it and the straw is NOT in the drink. This makes it not an "open beverage container". In Alabama, while in college, you had to plan for your parties if they were on a sunday. You couldn't buy any alcohol on sundays. Yeah, that makes sense.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272479 - 18/12/2005 17:22
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: lectric]
|
veteran
Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Quote:
In Alabama, while in college, you had to plan for your parties if they were on a sunday. You couldn't buy any alcohol on sundays. Yeah, that makes sense.
Back in Finland, you still can't buy anything stronger than beer anywhere except government-controlled special stores (also true for Sweden). They used to be closed both Sat and Sun - so everybody would stock up on Friday for the whole weekend (and drink it all on Friday). Now at least they are open on Saturdays...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272480 - 18/12/2005 18:44
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: julf]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
Quote:
Back in Finland, you still can't buy anything stronger than beer anywhere except government-controlled special stores (also true for Sweden).
Same in Utah, and I think some other states, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272482 - 19/12/2005 03:11
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Yes, this is what is happening. There is the idea that patients must be "protected" against themselves. So we entrust the patient's care to doctors who:
#1 Don't have to live with the situation and may, in many cases, are less informed about it than their patients.
#2 Have interests other than the patent's care.
You see, the patient is not allowed to care for himself. This is "for his own good". Collectively, our society as decided that we are too stupid, untrustworthy, and incompetent to be entrusted with the care of our own bodies.
People relinquish these freedoms because the feel they can then be free of the responsibilities and consequences of making bad choices. Our society is the result, and insurers against malpractice claims are the ones who end up dictating policy because they foot the bill.
In my view of a moral world, people would own the consequences of eating something (whether its flexoril, alcohol, opium or marijuana). There would be nobody to sue, because everyone would recognize that there is nobody else to blame. We would allow people to make decisions that were different than the ones we would make in the same situation, and then we would require that people lived with the results.
The sad truth, articulated brilliantly in Erich Fromm's Escape from Feedom, is that people -- prehaps especially American people, don't want to be free because freedom means living with the results of bad decisions.
The one thing that everyone seems to agree upon, Democrats and Republicans alike, is that the state should be everyone's big parent. All of the major political arguments of today are simply arguing about what kind of parent people want. Nobody seems to question the underlying idea that it is OK to use government to impose one's own point of view on others. Almost everyone completely accepts this. The Left wants to impose one kind of world, while the Right has a different vision. Both believe in the same fundamental idea that is about as un-American and anti-freedom as you can get. From my point of view, they are idealogically identical, differing only in the details.
Well, I've had enough of it. Its gone too far. It's time to start having another political debate: What gives you the right to impose your morality on me?
Don't tread on me!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272483 - 19/12/2005 04:16
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
In my view of a moral world, people would own the consequences of eating something (whether its flexoril, alcohol, opium or marijuana). There would be nobody to sue, because everyone would recognize that there is nobody else to blame. We would allow people to make decisions that were different than the ones we would make in the same situation, and then we would require that people lived with the results.
Even if say thing you ate was contaminated with something extremely harmful because a third party had been reckless and screwed up ?
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272484 - 19/12/2005 06:05
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: andy]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
No, of course not. My view of the world does not have room for negligence or harming others.
I am talking about how people treat themselves.
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272485 - 19/12/2005 06:14
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Interesting book recommendations, thanks! They remind me of some literature I've heard of that claims it's possible to cure most eyesite problems without glasses. On the back pain subject, a friend's wife decided to go against her doctor's advice to have surgery for her back pain (after which, best case scenario, she would likely need a cane for mobility). She chose some non-invasive procedure, and she's now running around chasing her children. Some days, I just have no faith in doctors. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272486 - 19/12/2005 10:52
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
In Alabama, while in college, you had to plan for your parties if they were on a sunday. You couldn't buy any alcohol on sundays. Yeah, that makes sense.
It's that way in Georgia, as I found out when I moved here. My brother in law told me this when we went to the store together one Sunday and I didn't believe him- had to ask the people working there. Not being much of a drinker I had no ideas laws like that existed. Very silly if you ask me.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272487 - 19/12/2005 11:07
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
No, of course not. My view of the world does not have room for negligence or harming others.
And there's the rub, of course. Very little that we do affects only ourselves. What is the difference between the negligence of letting food be contaminated and getting so high you decide to drive a car and end up plowing right into a family car, killing everyone inside? I understand that at that point you'd say to prosecute for the bad decision to drive while high, drug use or no, but this isn't much consolation for the loved ones of the people who died. And unfortunately, as a society we don't generally do a very good job of looking at the potential consequences for our actions. A nation full of drug abusers with no external motivation to stop until it's too late would not be a good place to live.
I'm not saying that I know what the solution is. I've seen my wife being treated like a criminal just to have the drugs she needs. It's really terrible and the system isn't working the way it is. I don't think there are any easy answers, unfortunatly, and that is very sad.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272488 - 19/12/2005 12:30
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
addict
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 498
Loc: Virginia, USA
|
FYI, Flexeril an be bought over the internet. There are two basic ways: 1. Order from a US site. They'll make you fill out a form which supposedly goes to a doctor who you writes you a prescription. I doubt there really is a doctor involved but they make a show of following the law. You'll get an FDA approved drug from a US pharmacy. 2. Order from an overseas pharmacy where they don't make any pretense of involving a doctor. This will likely be cheaper - sometimes by a lot. What you'll probably get is a generic made by an overseas company that isn't FDA approved. I'm careful who I order from and my experience has been good. www.drugbuyers.com is a forum where people discuss these places and which ones are reliable. It's an interesting forum because you find the full gamet from recreational Vicodin addicts to responsible people who, for reasons like yours, have decided to take control of their own medical treatment.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272489 - 19/12/2005 17:44
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
old hand
Registered: 27/02/2003
Posts: 777
Loc: Washington, DC metro
|
Quote:
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.
and
Quote:
You see, the patient is not allowed to care for himself. This is "for his own good".
I’ll offer a defense of the medical profession (and a disclaimer: I am not a physician but a lot of my relatives are, including my grandfather who was the chair of surgery at Duke for many years).
Beyond the training in anatomy, injury and disease, tests and scans, drug actions and interactions – all those things we think of when we think of what doctors do, doctors are trained to observe, and to observe nuance. This goes beyond just hearing what a patient says about their symptoms; they see things and ask questions that may not occur to a patient – the leg pain that’s really a back problem.
The body is a very dynamic system and we compensate for its changes over time. Chronic pain can lead to poor posture, which can lead to other damage. What a physician saw 10 years ago may well have changed. Frankly, I’m surprised your doctor let you go that long with a “med-check” visit. Yes, in your case, it might not be warranted, but the physician can’t (ethically) decide that over the phone.
-jk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272490 - 19/12/2005 18:49
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
What is the difference between the negligence of letting food be contaminated and getting so high you decide to drive a car and end up plowing right into a family car, killing everyone inside?
The difference is huge, and its right in your post. The key is the "you decide" part.
Quote:
I understand that at that point you'd say to prosecute for the bad decision to drive while high, drug use or no, but this isn't much consolation for the loved ones of the people who died.
You're right, so we should prosecute them not only for their negligence (whether they killed someone or not), but also for the harm they inflicted on others. There is no way to stop these kinds of acts from happening, but we can hold people accountable when they do. This is how we handle drunk driving. Drunk driving is an illegal act because it is negligent to others. When a drunk kills someone, we prosecute them for murder in addition to drunken driving. Getting drunk is not a crime, however, and shouldn't be.
Quote:
And unfortunately, as a society we don't generally do a very good job of looking at the potential consequences for our actions.
This is exactly my point. We don't hold people accountable because they aren't free to make decisions of their own accord. Accoutability, responsibility and authority are all interrelated. This is my whole point, which you seem to agree with but don't understand the root cause. It is precisely the idea that the government needs to impose "moral" behavior that causes a society where people don't consider the consequences of their actions. They don't need to. This is precisely my point about people not really wanting to be free. If you see this as a failing in our society, as I do, really think about why it occurs. Freedom implies responsibility. Lack of freedoms imply lack of responsibility. This is the direct cause of both the litigious society and the general lack of consideration of consequences. People do not start out failing to consider consequences -- they learn that behavior. It is strategic behavior, like any other human behavior. In fact, I would go so far as to say that people do consider the consequences, they just don't care.
Quote:
A nation full of drug abusers with no external motivation to stop until it's too late would not be a good place to live.
This is an opinion of yours (I would say a prejudice) that has no basis in actual experience. It is effective and scary rhetoric, but not the way things actually are. In the 19th century, there was no drug prohibition is the US, and we did not live in a "nation full of drug abusers." Holland is not a "nation full of drug abusers" and is reportedly quite a nice place to live.
This statement reveals your fundamental misunderstanding: You believe that people, left to their own devices, will become a "nation full of drug abusers." In other words, at your very core, you believe that without external coercion people will destroy their lives and the lives of those around them. This point of view is closely tied to religious conservatism, and has been called an "ascending view" -- people are inherently evil and must be controlled, either by the state or by the threat of eternal punishment. I believe this is completely ridiculous. Even if it were true, I believe it is nobody's business but my own if I choose to lead a self-destructive life.
History has proven that a person's motivation to persue their self interest causes them to accomplish much greater deeds than the fear of damnation or imprisonment. Look at the other thread showing the night skies of North and South Korea...
At root, however, I think I have a much higher view of man than you do.
Quote:
I don't think there are any easy answers, unfortunatly, and that is very sad.
There are no easy answers. Freedom is messy business. We need to allow people to make bad decisions for themselves. This is not an easy answer, but it is the moral answer.
I think that much of the "ascending view" that I mention earlier is people's own fear that they will be unable to control themselves. Well, your fears do not give you the right to impose your own values (which may themselves be fear-based) on others.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272491 - 19/12/2005 18:53
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: Dylan]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Yes, I realize there are ways around the law. We as a society even seem to think that it is OK to circumvent the law. Why don't we have the cojones to take the next logical step and admit it is an irrational and immoral law? Isn't this a lot of effort because we won't simply admit we are wrong?
This attitude leads to selective enforcement of laws (resulting in institutional prejudice and racism), lack of respect for rule of law, and a host of other problems.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I will probably go to one of these grey market alternatives. My point is that I shouldn't have to.
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272492 - 19/12/2005 18:58
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: jmwking]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
I understand all of this, and I think its a good point. It misses my point however, that it isn't morally the doctor's choice. It's mine.
Again, in my fantasy view of the world, the doctor would not be required to get this medicine.
On the other hand, in my fantasy world, I would continue seeing a doctor every couple of years for checkups, etc, because I respect and appreciate the education and experience you describe. Since he knows me, and keeps records on me, he would ask me how my back is doing, etc... Again, it should be my choice whether to seek his counsel. I would, because I know he's dedicated many years to developing his craft and he has insights I can't have. This is the same reason I would hire an attorney. I am not *required* to get an attorney, or an accountant, but many would say its probably a good idea.
I did see this doctor every 2 or 3 years for a physical, or for some other reason (sinus infection or whatever). I'm pretty healthy, so I didn't see him every year.
I really don't know if I can bring myself to seeing him again. I don't trust that my interests come first.
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272493 - 19/12/2005 19:41
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
What is the difference between the negligence of letting food be contaminated and getting so high you decide to drive a car and end up plowing right into a family car, killing everyone inside?
The difference is huge, and its right in your post. The key is the "you decide" part.
I don't understand your distinction. In both cases someone has made a decision that affects others. In the case of the contamination I will assume it is a failure to properly handle food in a safe way and determine that it is clear of contaminates. The contamination is a natural result of the irresponsibility of the provider. In the case of drugs causing suffering to others, it was the irresponsible use of mind altering drugs that caused the problem. The question is whether you'll do better dealing with the cause rather than the effect, and that's not always an easy question. It often depends on how often the cause leads to the effect. With drugs it is certainly true that some variations bring a higher degree of risk to others.
Quote:
Quote:
I understand that at that point you'd say to prosecute for the bad decision to drive while high, drug use or no, but this isn't much consolation for the loved ones of the people who died.
There is no way to stop these kinds of acts from happening, but we can hold people accountable when they do.
Yes we CAN stop these kinds of things from happening, or at least lessen them. We can make it more difficult for people to obtain substances that will cause them to act in irrational and dangerous ways. Unfortunately, doing so can create more problems than it solves, and that's why these questions get so difficult. You and I have both experienced the negative sides of this.
Quote:
You believe that people, left to their own devices, will become a "nation full of drug abusers." In other words, at your very core, you believe that without external coercion people will destroy their lives and the lives of those around them. This point of view is closely tied to religious conservatism, and has been called an "ascending view" -- people are inherently evil and must be controlled, either by the state or by the threat of eternal punishment.
Here you are right about my view of human nature- it's pretty much an impass between our worldviews. I don't believe the state should control people for their own well being, but I do think the state needs to control people for the well being of others.
Quote:
I believe this is completely ridiculous.
Such is the evaluation of most with differing viewpoints. I don't think very highly of the concept that people left to their own devices will treat each other the way they ought and make choices that are responsible toward others.
Quote:
Even if it were true, I believe it is nobody's business but my own if I choose to lead a self-destructive life.
Once again, it's not about what you might do to yourself, but what you might do to other people.
Quote:
At root, however, I think I have a much higher view of man than you do.
Correct. I believe that man is inherintly flawed, meaning my view of man's nature is quite low.
Quote:
Well, your fears do not give you the right to impose your own values (which may themselves be fear-based) on others.
My view is not to impose my values on other people through law or politics, though I do try to convince other people of the benifits to my value system. Once again, the issue is when living a destructive life affects other people. There are plenty of things that I think should be legal even though I personally hold them to be wrong and immoral.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272494 - 19/12/2005 21:21
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
I think there's one other aspect of this issue that's not been addressed yet in this thread.
The role doctors play is not only ostensibly for the benefit of their advised patients, it's also to create a system whereby non-qualified people are explicitly barred from offering 'expert' advice on medical issues. While I can't disagree that nobody knows how your body reacts to substances as well as you do, I'm damn sure that non-doctors certainly don't know as well as doctors how well these substances will affect others. Were we to go to a non-regulated/minimally regulated marketplace for physio/psychotropic substances you would have legion such 'experts' dispensing cut rate advise.
There's a good deal of danger in the 'witch-doctor'/anecdotal advice approach to medicine. Is there possibly some up-side? Perhaps, but there are certainly some drastic downsides that outweigh any such upside (such as death from mixing incompatible medicines).
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272495 - 19/12/2005 21:25
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
there are certainly some drastic downsides that outweigh any such upside (such as death from mixing incompatible medicines)
But that role is more often played by your pharmacist than by your doctor anyway.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272496 - 19/12/2005 21:29
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Well, they're also licensed professionals - so I think my point applies to them as well.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272497 - 20/12/2005 00:23
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
In my view of a moral world, people would own the consequences of eating something (whether its flexoril, alcohol, opium or marijuana). There would be nobody to sue, because everyone would recognize that there is nobody else to blame.
Jimmy, I think I must respectfully disagree with you in your specific case.
You went to the doctor originally, sought his advice, and followed his advice. In giving you that advice, he did assume some responsibility for the outcome of that advice. To make a ridiculous example -- suppose he had prescribed for you something that helped your back pain, but destroyed your liver at the same time. Would you not hold him responsible for the damages?
That doctor is protecting not only his own interests, but your interests as well. I can understand a doctor's being reluctant to assume that a patient's condition is unchaged after a decade, and why he would be even more reluctant to assume that the paitent was able to objectively assess his condition better than he could -- unless, perhaps, that patient had years of medical school training and decades of experience in the field of medicine. I suspect that is not the case in your situation.
You are asking that doctor to put his livelihood on the line and provide you with potentially dangerous drugs, for which he is liable should there be any negative outcome. I don't feel that his wishing to see you and discuss the issue with you is a particularly onerous requirement.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272498 - 20/12/2005 00:44
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
In the UK you can only buy normal ibuprofen in packs of 16 over the counter. We are still working our way through a bottle of 500 that we bought in the US when we were there a couple of years ago...
Once I year i borrow my friend's Costco card and go buy 1-2 of the double-500 packs for around $11. I should go into business. I can see the news story now "Citizens of the UK buying their drugs by mail order from the US of A!"
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272499 - 20/12/2005 00:56
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
I respect your right to disagree, of course.
However, you guys are missing my point, and I think it is an important point.
I believe that the doctor should not be held accountable. I am willing to assume responsibility for all risks and consequences associated with what I eat. That means that I will relinquish my "right" to sue if the outcome is bad, because I don't believe that is what lawsuits are for.
If a doctor deliberately misleads me, or provides me with incorrect information through negligence, then I may have a case against him. That's not the situation here.
I would like to go ahead and do what I want, without anyone's "permission", and completely accept that this means that I have nobody to blame but myself if things go badly.
You see, I disagree with the entire system, including the part that makes the doctor liable. If I reject this idea as immoral (in this case, the public foisting responsibility for consequences on doctors), there isn't the issue you raise.
I am not saying that a doctor, or any professional, should not be held accountable for ineptitude, negligence, or abuse. Just like when a mechanic breaks something on my car, I expect him to fix it at no cost to me. He is liable. However, if I consult with a mechanic prior to buying a car and ask his professional advice as to whether its a good car, I don't believe I have the right to sue him for damages if the car turns out to be a lemon. Unless, of course, he was involved in fraud and an agent of a dishonest seller.
Does that clarify my point of view?
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272500 - 20/12/2005 01:18
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Jimmy, I think I must respectfully disagree with you in your specific case.
I've read down the thread and, while I would limit my disagreement with the original post -- I don't know all the details -- my sum feeling is much what you say here...
Quote:
You went to the doctor originally, sought his advice, and followed his advice. In giving you that advice, he did assume some responsibility for the outcome of that advice. To make a ridiculous example -- suppose he had prescribed for you something that helped your back pain, but destroyed your liver at the same time. Would you not hold him responsible for the damages?
Not such a ridiculous example. As an aside I think Bitt asked "Kill yourself with acetimenophen/paracetemol?" You bet! Nasty drug, liver-wise. And so many combination drugs, and other drugs with potential long-term effects.
Quote:
That doctor is protecting not only his own interests, but your interests as well.
I think sometimes it is just very handy for professions like medicine that interests converge in such a way that -- while "looking out for the patient's/client's interests" -- the doc gets to make more money. Some providers do a better job of monitoring this...."Cognitive dissonance?". Dentists often get knocked for this. I remember last year when I discovered that I could not get a new pair of eyeglasses because my presscription was two years and one month old -- a month over the iimit, a complete racket, the optometrist full employment act, yet a rule put in place ostensibly to protect my (health) interests.
Quote:
I can understand a doctor's being reluctant to assume that a patient's condition is unchaged after a decade, and why he would be even more reluctant to assume that the paitent was able to objectively assess his condition better than he could -- unless, perhaps, that patient had years of medical school training and decades of experience in the field of medicine. I suspect that is not the case in your situation.
My cynical aside aside, if I were in the provider's shoes, I could not help but be aware of the many docs who are sued for failure to take due care, failure to meet community standards of care, things like that. When I read the OP, while I was sympathetic -- especially with respect to the economics and health insurance situation -- I just couldn't find a way to villainize the doc. If you were speaking from Canada, I'd like to think that doc will still make you come visit. You just wouldn't be dealing with the economic impact.
Quote:
You are asking that doctor to put his livelihood on the line and provide you with potentially dangerous drugs, for which he is liable should there be any negative outcome. I don't feel that his wishing to see you and discuss the issue with you is a particularly onerous requirement.
I might be exaggerating, but I'm generally of the opinion that "adults" should be able to ingest whatever ridiculous thing they want. War on Drugs a complete failure and all that. I'm one of those people -- take non-prescription Ibuprofen in prescription doses! I figure I'm old enough to decide and if I die it's my fault. I just don't think it is a doctor's job to play along with whatever independent decisions I make.
Bit of a ramble, sorry.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272501 - 20/12/2005 01:31
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
We can make it more difficult for people to obtain substances that will cause them to act in irrational and dangerous ways.
You see, I just can't accept this argument because I hold people to a higher standard of behavior. I don't think that the substances "cause" them to act in dangerous ways. I think that people act in irrational and dangerous ways, and then blame the substances for their behavior.
This is akin to "blaming the gun". Well, to quote an old cliche, I think it is absolutely true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Our society blames the gun, or the drug, or whatever. In doing so, we fail to hold people accountable as responsible moral agents. It isn't the person's fault, it's the drug's fault. I think this is hogwash, because the decison to use the drug is voluntary. Therefore people can be held accountable for their actions while under the influence of the drug. Can be and should be. The drug is not the point. Selfish, negligent and harmful (to others) behavior is the issue.
If we took your argument to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't allow people to buy gasoline, guns of any kind, and a whole host of other products that "might" be used to harm other people. The problem is, that's not the way a free society works. A free society works by entrusting the public with potentially dangerous objects, but requiring that they not be used to endanger or harm others. When people endanger or harm others, we must deal with that severely. Not only is that not how a free society functions, it is simply impossible to remove all the ways that people can hurt each other.
Your post has a built-in contradiction, you say:Quote:
it was the irresponsible use of mind altering drugs that caused the problem.
Well, if that's correct, then the issue is not the drugs, or the availability of drugs. I agree with you 100%, by the way. The issue is that people behaved irresponsibly and made negligent and harmful choices. This is the fundamental issue. That is also way you can't prevent it from happening, because people can make those decisions that are harmful to others in millions of ways: driving recklessly, locking fire escape doors, misusing constuction equipment, dumping chemicals, whatever. It is *impossible* to remove the *opportunity* to harm other people. We shouldn't try, because we are simply deluding ourselves and giving ourselves the illusion of security. Instead, we should accept that life is fundamentally insecure. There are dangerous things in the world and people MUST be entrusted with those dangerous things in order to have a functioning society. The way to do that is to hold people accountable for treating others negligently or harmfully.
Of course, getting high and stepping into a car is a BAD THING. Sitting at home alone and getting high is a GOOD THING, as far as many people are concerned (funny I have such strong opinions because I don't even do this personally). A free society is based on the notion that we do not have the right to interfere with the second activity, only the first.
Arguments based on the notion that the second activity (getting high alone at home) harms others because of the expense to the medical or welfare system are not well reasoned. In a true free society, one should be able to opt out of these programs. We are not given this option.
Quote:
Correct. I believe that man is inherintly flawed, meaning my view of man's nature is quite low.
This is the fundamental justification for tyranny.
You see, I think you believe more than that. I think that you believe that man's nature is quite low, and therefore they can not be entrusted to determine what is best for themselves. You seem to believe that you must do that, using the force of police and the mechanism of politics.
In a free society, people are left to determine for themselves what is a GOOD THING, and act on it however they choose -- with only a single limitation: they must not endager or harm others while doing so.
Even if you are right, and man is inherently immoral, in a free society that is nobody's business but his own. And if that is true, by the way, where do these laws come from? They are developed by men. How can an "inherintly flawed" man come up with these moral rules?
Well, he can't. So we need to leave that to the individual -- as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
Quote:
There are plenty of things that I think should be legal even though I personally hold them to be wrong and immoral.
Can we agree, idealogically, that sitting at home alone and getting drunk is one of these things? If we can, how about getting high with other substances? How are these two things ANY different, from a moral and idealogical point of view?
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272502 - 20/12/2005 01:38
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: jimhogan]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
I just couldn't find a way to villainize the doc.
Good points. I didn't intend to villianize the doc. My point is that the doctor exists within a corrupt and immoral system which puts his interests at odds with mine.
Your point about the optometry is a great point. It is illegal for someone to sell me contact lenses after 1 year from my last optometry visit. This is just more insanity. Its also an obvious scam and used to line the pockets of the eyewear companies. It also creates an artifical market so people need to pay close to $100 for a stupid little 15 minute eye test. What choice do we have?
How is it that this doesn't seem to bother people?
Do you guys in this thread who are arguing in support of the system really believe that these laws were passed in our best interest?!?! The patient's interest is simply an excuse. The reality is that special interests lobby for these laws, and since we've already voluntarily given up so much of our freedoms, we accept this nonsense about it being for our own good.
Well, I say, "thank you, but I'll decide what is for my own good."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272503 - 20/12/2005 06:02
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Even if it were true, I believe it is nobody's business but my own if I choose to lead a self-destructive life.
Oooh, I don't know. On the whole, I tend to agree with your suggestions, particularly about people taking responsibility for their actions, but I do have a few insurance premiums that seem to prove otherwise, on this particular point. It's one of the arguments that I've heard from pro-smokers -- I have the right to kill myself if I want. Only problem is that your right to do this costs the nation (and thus, me, through my high taxes) millions of dollars a year in health (and other) costs. It's true that your individual efforts cause a negligible amount of problems/costs for others, but all the individuals, collectively, have a tendency to add up.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272504 - 20/12/2005 07:32
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
They only cost you millions of dollars because you choose to offer state funded medical benefits to smokers. Personal responsibility, in my book, means just that: nobody else is going to foot the bill.
Like I said, your argument might be more valid if I could opt out of all these programs and smoke myself to death. Then, people who chose to participate in all of those expensive programs you mention would need to comply with requirements of participation.
That's always the deal: you get someone else to take care of you, but then you need to do what they say.
Well, you don't need to provide those social programs to people who are unwilling to comply with your requirements. The only problem is that I'm unable to opt out. You (not you personally, but the society) object to spending millions on services that I don't want, and then use it as an excuse to control my behavior. That doesn't make any sense!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272505 - 20/12/2005 12:50
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I don't think that the substances "cause" them to act in dangerous ways. I think that people act in irrational and dangerous ways, and then blame the substances for their behavior.
Do you believe that all people who act irrational and dangerous on a bad trip are equally as irrational and dangerous when they are not tripping? I certainly don’t think so.
Quote:
This is akin to "blaming the gun". Well, to quote an old cliche, I think it is absolutely true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Our society blames the gun, or the drug, or whatever. In doing so, we fail to hold people accountable as responsible moral agents. It isn't the person's fault, it's the drug's fault. I think this is hogwash, because the decison to use the drug is voluntary.
I think this is a good analogy- problem is my view is the same. I think that to own a gun, people should demonstrate they understand how to use one and can be responsible with it. Guns make people more dangerous to others, as do drugs. It makes sense to me in both cases that we put protections in place to ensure that they are both used properly by responsible people who can handle them without hurting others.
Quote:
Your post has a built-in contradiction
Sorry- I don’t see a contradiction. I said that taking the drug irresponisbly was the cause and I believe it is. Since this is an issue that affects other people, this is an area in which the government should do as much as possible to ensure responsible actions.
Quote:
That is also way you can't prevent it from happening, because people can make those decisions that are harmful to others in millions of ways: driving recklessly, locking fire escape doors, misusing constuction equipment, dumping chemicals, whatever. It is *impossible* to remove the *opportunity* to harm other people.
I think all of these, or most at least, are violations of the law- and for good reason.
Quote:
Sitting at home alone and getting high is a GOOD THING, as far as many people are concerned (funny I have such strong opinions because I don't even do this personally).
Unless your altered state then helps you decide to get in a car or do something else even worse. What do you think about people going on bad trips with infants in the house?
Quote:
Quote:
Correct. I believe that man is inherintly flawed, meaning my view of man's nature is quite low.
This is the fundamental justification for tyranny.
I think that’s quite a leap- some may use it that way. I don’t believe my views are tyrannical.
Quote:
You see, I think you believe more than that. I think that you believe that man's nature is quite low, and therefore they can not be entrusted to determine what is best for themselves. You seem to believe that you must do that, using the force of police and the mechanism of politics.
On what basis do you think this? It seems to me my opinions in this thread have been fairly moderate. I have stated that I think unregulated use of drugs creates a danger to other people and therefore it probably needs some regulation from the government. I am not advocating creating laws so that other people live by my moral viewpoint, but I do want a safer world for my family and myself.
Quote:
In a free society, people are left to determine for themselves what is a GOOD THING, and act on it however they choose -- with only a single limitation: they must not endager or harm others while doing so.
Do you miss the point that I agree with this completely, only that I think the unregulated use of drugs is endangering to other people whereas you do not? That is our real point of contention.
I think most of our actions affect other people- there is very little we can do in total isolation. Even at that, we have to tolerate a great deal of negative effects from others in order to have even a semi-free society. The question is where we draw the line and what constitutes something dangerous enough that the government needs to step in.
Quote:
Even if you are right, and man is inherently immoral, in a free society that is nobody's business but his own. And if that is true, by the way, where do these laws come from? They are developed by men. How can an "inherintly flawed" man come up with these moral rules?
Immoral, not amoral. Often we know what is right; we just do something different.
As to where our moral rules came from, there are two answers to this question- either they were put in our nature by God (C.S. Lewis uses this as one of his arguments for faith in his book “Mere Christianity”) or they were the result of evolution- those with the morals that have endured tend to live longer and procreate more. I subscribe to the first answer, obviously.
Quote:
Quote:
There are plenty of things that I think should be legal even though I personally hold them to be wrong and immoral.
Can we agree, idealogically, that sitting at home alone and getting drunk is one of these things? If we can, how about getting high with other substances? How are these two things ANY different, from a moral and idealogical point of view?
Well most of the time you aren’t going to be busted for abusing drugs sitting at home. If you are truly in an isolated environment where you aren’t going to hurt anything, then you can do whatever you like to yourself- and it seems this is the way it all works out practically anyway. Getting high with an infant in the house is a different story, though. There are also different degrees of controlled substances. Alcohol and Marijuana are both probably pretty innocuous in these situations (unless you then decide you are fit to drive). LSD and other, more powerful drugs can lead to more dangerous results.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272506 - 20/12/2005 14:12
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Would all of this irritate you as much if everything involved was state-sponsored? (And, for the moment, put aside your obvious libertarian politics.) What I'm getting at is that, if this was a "perfect" world and all of this (the doctor's visit, the drug itself, etc.) had no cost, financial or temporal, to anyone, would you still be as irritated? That is, is it the fact that you have to rely on a doctor or the fact that it's a money-making scheme? You seem to be vascillating on that issue. I can understand that it might be both for you, but, generally speaking, people get worked up over a specific reason and then find other (legitimate) reasons to back up their stance. I want to know which it is for you.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272507 - 20/12/2005 19:59
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Good question. Its needing to appeal (and submit) to authority to get what I think is best for myself that I have a problem with. The financial consideration is actually not that important to me, but I think it is a problem that arises when these kinds of systems are put in place. I think that people who may disagree that I should be the "soverign of my body" might agree with the other negative conseqences, like the financial conflict of interest.
I *suppose* I would be considered a libertarian, but I can't get behind the Libertarian (capital L) party. For one thing, I think the society should see to the education of its people. There are many other specific reasons. The big-L Libertarians tend to be a bit distant from what one might call "Jeffersonian liberalism" or "classical liberalism" ala David Hume, which I think is spot on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272508 - 20/12/2005 20:08
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
On what basis do you think this? It seems to me my opinions in this thread have been fairly moderate. I have stated that I think unregulated use of drugs creates a danger to other people and therefore it probably needs some regulation from the government. I am not advocating creating laws so that other people live by my moral viewpoint, but I do want a safer world for my family and myself.
I'm working on a longer reply to your careful and well-reasoned post. I just wanted to point out that I intend none of my arguments as "ad hominem" attack. Really, nothing personal. Also, I agree that your opinions have been really moderate. I also think you are open to reconsidering your views.
I want you to know that I am open to reconsidering my views. I've thought through the issue a great deal, and I have (to me) good reasons for my position. I know that you do, too. First, though, we need to reach the point where we are sure that we understand each other's point of view.
For many years, I was as adamantly anti-captial punishment as I am on this issue (for some pretty good reasons, if I do say so myself). While I still believe those reasons are valid, and I am opposed to capital punishment in almost every situation, I read an opinion by a California judge some years ago that made me see that it is necessary, in some cases. Not to derail this thread, but this judge was himself an anti-capital punishment judge -- who ordered the death penalty. His reasons were pretty compelling...
Anyhow, I've got to run to the bank, so my reply to all of your points is going to have to wait. I wanted to post right away to let you know how much I appreciate the open, honest, and civil exchange! Many people think these conversations are not worthwhile because "nobody is going to change their mind." I don't think that's true. While I don't think you and I are going to totally agree on this topic, the discussion forces both of us to really consider our points of view and think through the problem.
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272509 - 20/12/2005 20:36
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I think that the crux of the biscuit is: Should the government protect people from their own dumbassery? And an important part of that determination is whether or not that dumbassery affects others, or if the dumbassery is incidental to any effect that might be forced upon others. The latter I'm more comfortable with personally, and I'd say no. I'm reasonably against anti-drug laws, as I think they cause more harm than good. Lots of people probably went blind during prohibition for drinking wood alcohol because they had no verification that what they were drinking was what it was supposed to be. But now that alcohol is legal again, virtually no one turns to moonshiners and the government can make sure that what people are selling is not dangerous. I feel like more people are hurt by drug impurities than by the drugs themselves. If we could remove the baby laxatives, powdered milk, and talcum powder from heroin or at least make the purity level known, for example, I think there would be fewer deaths. (This is an extreme example, of course.) And a good way to do that would be to make them legal and start regulating them, for accurate content labelling, if nothing else. In other words, not only do I think that people should be responsible for their own actions and allowed to be responsible for them, I also think that the government should provide a way for people to be responsible within the context of allowing them to what they want. In the context of doctors and legitimate prescriptions (as opposed to recreational drugs), I think this means that the government should continue to license medical doctors so that you have the ability to get expert advice, but they probably should not restrict those drugs, either. But, in the context of my argument, that makes you a dumbass for not seeing your doctor in ten years.  But then does that mean that the government should spend resources to help people who choose to be irresponsible anyway? Unfortunately, I'd say yes. There should be some penalty for those people after they've been helped, but we cannot allow them to rot. Perhaps these people should be required to seek the government's responsibility so as to not affect the wellbeing of others. That brings us back to moonshiners and whatever non-taxed recreational drug makers would be called. But I think that that market is likely to be small enough that it would be relatively insignificant. The paradox in all of this is that if you want a large margin of freedom for most citizens, but restictions on those who'd screw it up for the rest of us requires a very large and potentially dictatorial government. In order to mark those people that need government restrictions, you end up marking everyone else, too. And the potential for abuse becomes higher. So the thing that makes a free yet healthy society work is the very thing that makes a tyrannical society work. It just has to be used differently.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272510 - 21/12/2005 12:25
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Bitt, I think that was a great post, and I think we agree about where the issue is. I think the current system isn't working, nor do I think simply legalizing drugs without accountability would be a good thing either. Some sort of legalizing with regulation seems to be a better approach, but it'd be a tough nut to crack, especially with some of the more extreme drugs. I really like your statement: Quote:
In other words, not only do I think that people should be responsible for their own actions and allowed to be responsible for them, I also think that the government should provide a way for people to be responsible within the context of allowing them to what they want.
Just in general that rings true to me, though like many things its easier said than done.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272511 - 21/12/2005 12:38
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I wanted to post right away to let you know how much I appreciate the open, honest, and civil exchange! Many people think these conversations are not worthwhile because "nobody is going to change their mind." I don't think that's true. While I don't think you and I are going to totally agree on this topic, the discussion forces both of us to really consider our points of view and think through the problem.
I've enjoyed it too, and I also appreciate the civility of this thread.
While I think it unlikely that I'd support the blanket legalization of drugs without some government oversite, I am very interested in ideas to change the current situation, especially as it relates to healthcare.
You know something else that really gets my blood boiling? When a doctor prescribes a non-generic and you fill the perscription but the the insurance won't pay. And at that point you can't get the generic because it wasn't perscribed so you're stuck either forgoing the medicine or paying a lot of money when you've already paid for perfectly good insurance. I'm sorry, but when I'm sick and go to my doctor, the last thing on my mind is trying to make sure he perscribes generics when they're available. We ought to have some way to downgrade a perscription to a generic (or some other solutin), because while it's all fun and games for the doctor and insurance company, there are people who are really sick or in pain not getting their medication.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272512 - 21/12/2005 12:50
Re: I am completely outraged
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
For many years, I was as adamantly anti-captial punishment as I am on this issue (for some pretty good reasons, if I do say so myself). While I still believe those reasons are valid, and I am opposed to capital punishment in almost every situation, I read an opinion by a California judge some years ago that made me see that it is necessary, in some cases. Not to derail this thread, but this judge was himself an anti-capital punishment judge -- who ordered the death penalty. His reasons were pretty compelling...
If you remember what the case was, I'd like to read it. I used to be pro-death-penalty (a dead person will commit no crimes) but I came around to the value of life.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index