Letters to the Editor
-
I can see why you don't post on this topic very often
Good grief. Glenn, I'm a big fan of your political writings but this is the one they are going to dig up if you ever ran for public office.
Just out of sheer practicality, the world is full of hypocondriacs who would take the most severe and addictive medication at the first sign of headache, regardless of doctor advice, thinking they've got Ebola. In addition, the web of complex drug interactions as well as side effects on a persons physiology and psychology are far beyond what the average person is going to handle. What if as an 'informed adult' you take a coctail of drugs that turns you into a psychotic killer? Or puts you asleep at the wheel? And what if in the aforementioned cases you are a cop or a bus driver? Or just causes you to be so violently ill that you have to report to the emergency room, drawing attention away from more deserving patients.
Frankly, without even thinking about it I could come up with a dozen more points against this idea. But its too early in the morning. But what it comes down to is what medication you take does not occur to you in a vacuum. We haven't even entered into the vast product liability questions something like this raises, not to mention malpractice concerns.
-
This should be interesting
Personally, I'd prefer to avoid making informed decisions about drugs, other than to query my doctor closely about whether or not they're really needed. The reason for that caution is that I've observed over the years that an earnest patient can effect the diagnosis, and that many people probably don't need some of the very powerful and very iffy drugs that they wind up taking.
Whay don't I want to shoulder the responsibility for my own treatment? At this point in my life, I suspect that it's simply the fear of confronting my own mortality. When I was younger, I avoided doctors, except on the basis of what I call the auto mechanic principle; it it breaks, go to a doctor and get it fixed.
Still, the broader question here is whether or not a public health principle is involved, and I would say that it's related to such questions as whether or not an insurance company should be required to insure smokers, or whether or not a state has the right to limit its costs for emergency medical care for people without the means to pay by, for example, requiring that seatbelts to be worn in cars, or helmets when riding a motorcycle.
I've watched conservatives, and liberals of both the so-called nanny state and libertarian flavors argue this since the sixties. What is the risk to the public, and to the state, of having boxes of heroin on the drugstore shelf next to aspirin? Are these risks, if any, acceptible in order to preserve an individual's freedom of choice? I can't wait to see what the commenters here have to say, as it's been a while since I've heard the point debated.
-
many prescription drugs are dangerous
The rationale for prescription drug laws is many drugs are dangergous and not from addiction risk. Serious adverse reactions are possible with many medications and general public is not educated in medicine enough to weigh the benefits vs risks. Glenn, are you really qualified to decide for yourself if and then which high-blood pressure or cholestrol lowering medication is appropriate for you?
Speaking from experience with adverse reactions, too many doctors don't take their duties to both weigh the risks and benefits and then educate their patienets about them. However, I don't believe that allowing people to treat themselves unsupervised for serious medical conditions is the correct answer.
That said, I vehementally object to laws against recreational drug use. Individuals can decide whether or not they want to smoke pot or snort cocaine. The benefits of recreational drug use are really only assessable by the individual. In the much smaller universe of recreational drugs, the risks are easier comprehend than the vast array of prescription medications available.
-
Damn
That's affect the diagnosis, although effect the diagnosis comes close to what actually happens in some cases I've observed.
-
The reasons are historical
I wanted to quickly chime in on your prescription drug discussion. Drugs were not really regulated until early in the 20th century and, of course, the impetus to regulate them was very political. Many unregulated substances were highly addictive (including all the coca derivatives) and others were tainted. As a result, the Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act. Initially it was a labeling act but morphed to prevent access to certain substances except through a physician. That scheme has not changed and, in fact, has only gotten stronger over the years. Initially physicians could "prescribe" addictive substances to addicts as treatment but the law was changed to criminalize that behavior because "addicts were bad people." I could go into the historical build-up of the bureaucracy and the lead up to the war on drugs, all of which further fuels the politicians to further regulate prescription drugs, but I have to get back to work too. A very interesting topic. Thanks.
-
My short answer.....
There is only one explanation I can come up with. And it only applies to a small subset of prescription drugs. There are certain substances which when ingested, affect judgment to the point where ones status as an "adult" can be called into question. That the one drug that is most accurately described in that manner is subject to less sales control than OTC decongestants, it certainly is appropriate to question how we got to this state. (I refer, of course, to alcohol)
We now know that many of the drug laws that are on the books in this country were specifically written to marginalize certain segments of the population. A quick look at prison population statistics reveals that they are still being used for this purpose. Do not expect rationality or logic to enter this debate any time soon.
-
Yes, but...
You know, I think what you would like is the situation in Russia - you can just go buy whatever medicine you want. People self-medicate all over the place there, with sometimes horrible results. It doesn't help that there are a lot of incompetent doctors there as well.
But all that aside, I think there is reason to regulate at least one class of drugs - anti-biotics. Because there is a problem if you let people use those willy-nilly - you can end up breeding all sorts of nasty, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, making the drugs less useful for everyone.
I think I generally agree with you, otherwise. Why not let adults decide what drugs to take? Let the police focus on real crimes and not consensual crimes.