Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Alcohol, alcohol, and alcohol
[Read the article: What is the rationale behind the prescription drug laws?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glen, I think you're off base with respect to non-psychoactive drugs (at least). If I decide I really could benefit from high powered cancer chemotherapy drugs to treat my asthma because I read something about it working on the web, should I have access to them?
Yes.
Do you think if you want to go hang-gliding in a strong wind, that you should be allowed to, or should the police come and arrest you if you try?
There's another problem which is that the doctor has also become the gatekeeper for the insurance company. To re-use the same analogy, should I be able to make my insurance company cover expensive chemotherapy drugs (I have no idea how much they cost - many hundreds of dollars I'm thinking) because I think it will help my asthma?
No, I have no problem with insurance companies only paying for treatment approved by doctors.
I think that besides the case you describe, where a person has done a lot of study but can't convince their doctor that they need anti-depressants and wants to take them anyway, there's a more likely case where someone influenced by TV ads just goes out to give them a try because they've had a bad week. Doesn't pay attention to the ramp-up time, and starts taking double, triple doses. After 3 weeks they decide this stuff ain't workin', and they drop it entirely at which point they go into a major skid and kill themselves and maybe their neighbors.
As several people have pointed out, the danger of people becoming addicted to alcohol and doing real damage not just to themselves, but to others, is far greater than many, probably most, of these drugs.
So I really don't understand how someone who opposes the legal prohibition against alcohol can make these arguments. I realize that's an old argument, but it doesn't make it less valid.
"Xanyx" and "morphine" may sound scarier than "whiskey" but when it comes to all of these arguments -- addiction, dagner to others, acting with intoxication -- alcohol is the far more dangerous and more destructive substance. Those who advocate the legalization of alcohol while urging that these other substances be outlawed are arguing incoherently.
-
erithtotl
[Read the article: What is the rationale behind the prescription drug laws?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In fact, that's exactly how it went.
No. You claimed that my response to your point about doped up bus drivers and cops was to point to people who smoke. You were able to claim that only by deleting most of my response, which included the point that drunk bus drivers and drunk cops are at least as much of a concern, yet you don't (presumably) favor returning to alcohol prohibition, which makes all of your points inconsitent.
The dangers of drinking, or mixing prescription drugs and drinking, are relatively well known, and straightforward (though of course they can still be ignored or misunderstood).
If your concern is really that people are unaware that popping a bunch of sleeping pills shouldn't be done while driving, then the solution is obviously to place a prominent warnings on the box -- or to require that they be advised of the risks -- before obtaining the medication.
Turning your fellow citizens into criminals or preventing them from getting the medication they want is a rather draconian and irrational response to your purported concern that people won't know that they shouldn't drive after swallowing sleeping pills.
Comparing alcohol to prescription drugs is a fallacy in logic. You can't simply draw one-to-one comparisons.
As a commenter above indicated, you are absolutely right, and it undermines everything you are saying. Multiple controlled substances are infinitely less dangerous than alcohol, and many are no more addictive. How can you justify allowing your fellow citizens to drink whiskey without the permission of a Wise Doctor -- they might drive a school bus drunk.
And what about in the case of children? Are you suggesting that any adult should feel free to medicate their child how they see fit with any dosage of any prescription medication?
As I said, whether people need prescriptions to give drugs to their kids is a completely different question - involving much different considerations - than whether adults can take the drugs themselves.
People are allowed to drink wine and smoke cigarettes but they're not allowed to get their kids drunk.
Yes you have a few libertarians that are saying 'way to go' but I've also seen a large number of medical professionals saying 'you don't know what you are talking about'. And that's the ultimate question you need to answer. Neither one of us are healthcare professionals nor trained as one. Do you know what you are talking about? That's ultimately my problem with your position, and choosing to make it on your blog. When discussing law, and politics, you have successfully positioned yourself as at least some kind of subject matter expert, either through education or extensive personal research. But at the point this because a public health issue, what qualifications do you have to make this argument? Did you go to medical school? Have you worked in an emergency room or drug treatment center?
That is truly ludicrous -- now you need a medical license to be able to opine on the legitimate scope and reach of law and government coercion. I think that would come as a great surprise to graduates of medical school, whose curriculum did not include political theory and therefore would be unlikely to agree with you that they are the "experts" on what the Government can legitimately do in order to protect people from themeselves.