Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 632
-
Glenn
[Read the article: What is the rationale behind the prescription drug laws?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And all the pilot and car driving hypotheticals are red herrings, too. Just like with alcohol, one can easily have laws prohibiting the use of drugs in connection with certain activities (driving, etc.) without banning the use altogether.
I brought up the driving example for two reasons, only one of which you addressed here. Yes, of course, everyone currently has the ability (but, of course not right) to drink and drive--or, for that matter, take lawfully acquired prescription drugs and drive. This is, admitedly, one of the weaker arguments I made in favor of limiting access to such drugs, for this very reason (although I think that stronger arguments could be made here, e.g. every additional drug made easily available to the general public in uncontrolled manner increases the chances that people will drive while under the influence of a substance that could impair their ability to drive safely and responsible--or, perhaps, while virtually all adults have been made well-aware of the ill effects of drinking and driving by countless PSAs, news reports and personal experience, or of taking certain prescription drugs and driving by their physicians and perhaps pharmacists, fewer would be likely to be as aware of such effects if they were able to obtain such drugs without a doctor's prescription (and thus advice), especially if obtained online).
However, I made a second driving-related point, namely, that to legally drive, one is required to pass both a written and driving test and get a licence, and renew it periodically. The same goes (to greater and lesser extents in different states and in different ways) for flying a plane, owning, carrying and using firearms, or practice law or medicing for that matter, etc. The point is that to do such things, you have to demonstrate a certain understanding of, competence with and responsibility for them. How is having to go through similar legal and practical hoops any different with obtaining prescription drugs? Are you arguing that all of these things should similarly be de-regulated, and essentially converted from being privileges to being rights? If not, what's the difference that I'm missing?
And, actually, I'd argue that peoples' having the right to ignore and avoid legal advice in making potentially adverse legal decisions is itself a bit of a red herring, because my understanding is that the constitution explicitely guarantees everyone a right to represent themselves legally without benefit of counsel, but it does not guarantee such a right for these other activities (while at the same time granting congress and states the right to regulate them, making this comparison even weaker, I think). You are, of course, the constitutional expert here and could probably shred this argument in seconds. But I'd be interested in seeing how, specifically, you'd do so. I.e. how is the "right" to obtain prescription drugs without a prescription any different from the "right" to own, carry and use a gun without a licence or regulation--and how are these not substantially different from the right to represent oneself in legal matters?
I will grant you the drinking and driving example in its broadest sense. But I view it as an insufficiently convincing one once examined in greater detail, some of which I've tried to lay out here, but of which there are clearly many others. E.g. banning alcoholic products because of the potential harm they can cause has historically proved to be both impossible (e.g. bootlegging, moonshine, homebrew) and counterproductive (e.g. rise of organized crime). Whereas producing many if not most prescription drugs is well beyond most peoples' or drug cartels' abilities (or else the market for bootleg Lipitor and Viagra would be immense). And, alcohol is a controlled substance, albeit far less so than such drugs--you have to be 21 or over to buy them, and can only buy them in certain places and at certain times. And alcohol is not intended to be "used" for specific purposes, as these drugs are, and thus doesn't justify careful dispensing.
But I digress, and perhaps dilute...
-
joemac
[Read the article: What is the rationale behind the prescription drug laws?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're pretty much making the same arguments I've made, which of course I agree with. This is not an absolute either/or debate, but rather one of degree and nuance, in which regulation--at least in theory--serves a reasonable purpose. You used the house rewiring example, and I used the driving and gun ownerwhip ones--as well as alcohol, which is in fact regulated as well, albeit less so than Rx drugs. All point to the presumed wisdom of regulating "things" that may cause harm if left unregulated. And yes, of course, they might still cause harm despite the most stringent of regulations. But one, they are hopefully and ideally likely (but not guaranteed) to cause less harm if properly regulated, and two, the fact that people will continue to break laws does not in any way argue for the removal of such laws.
Also, I think that the extent to which any "thing" that has a fairly high chance of causing people harm should be regulated is also a function of the extent to which it CAN be regulated. E.g. it's proven both impossible and counterproductive to try to overregulate let alone ban the purchase and consumption of alcohol. Or, say, kitchen knives, for that matter. Both can and do cause great harm to people, but really cannot be regulated beyond a limited extent. Whereas Rx drugs, like guns and driving, can be regulated, to a somewhat greater extent than alcohol and knives, due to their nature (although, of course, not absolutely--anyone who really wants to can still obtain Rx drugs or guns illegally or even legally, or drive w/o a license--but regulations do, I imagine, make it appreciably harder to do so).