Why Legalizing Pot Is a Bad Idea

[steveh_131]

Yes it is, but that's mainly due to laws in place, not doctor's rules. Many docs will give 12-month scripts on non-controlled substances. Many complicated patients need frequent monitoring of labs and checking for side effects. It would be malpractice to provide a year's worth of many meds without any guarantee of continued oversight (office visits)

in this era of massive legal ramifications for poor medical outcomes, do you really think docs will just accept the liability of long-term treatment plans without frequent evaluations? Tort reform would help greatly.

Oh I'm not putting the blame on the doctors, except for the general incompetence that we've experienced. The blame lies in the regulations. Although the hospitals and doctors associations lobby heavily to keep and expand those regulations that protect their monopoly.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Oh I'm not putting the blame on the doctors, except for the general incompetence that we've experienced. The blame lies in the regulations. Although the hospitals and doctors associations lobby heavily to keep and expand those regulations that protect their monopoly.

Yet recently PAs were granted C2 prescription writing (Percocet) and NPs can work much more independent. And physical therapy can be done without a script. The trend is less MD control, not more.

 

[steveh_131]

Yet recently PAs were granted C2 prescription writing (Percocet) and NPs can work much more independent. And physical therapy can be done without a script. The trend is less MD control, not more.

The trend is more control.

 

[Leo]

I have worked around people in bad situations. I have never had a pot smoker try to punch me out, try to hit me with a stick, try to race everything on the road with a junk pick up truck. Never took a woman and her kids to a safe house in the middle of the night to protect them from a pot smoker. They are generally pretty passive even if they get whiney and talk stupid. Drunks tend to be a lot more aggressive, almost like when a crack head goes off in rage. If there is a set of headlights coming at me on a remote highway, I would rather it be a weed smoker than a drunk.

 

[HoughMade]

...They are generally pretty passive even if they get whiney and talk stupid....

That's what I'm saying! Legalize it!

I say legalize pot.

My kids need even more people without ambition to "compete" against. Compete.....Hah!

 

[Leo]

.

 

[rambone]

Without a federal amendment authorizing prohibition and/or regulation of plants and substances, there is no constitutional leg to stand on in support of the current system. It is utterly anathema to the constitution.

So yes, the feds ought to butt out of marijuana as well as OTC drugs, and everything in between.

If you want to be a prohibitionist, have the integrity to call for doing it legally. You know, like your forebearers did with the 18th Amendment.

 

[Super Bee]

Without a federal amendment authorizing prohibition and/or regulation of plants and substances, there is no constitutional leg to stand on in support of the current system. It is utterly anathema to the constitution.

So yes, the feds ought to butt out of marijuana as well as OTC drugs, and everything in between.

If you want to be a prohibitionist, have the integrity to call for doing it legally. You know, like your forebearers did with the 18th Amendment.

So are you in favor of legalizing everything. . coke, heroin, meth, ect? Its not a gotcha question, nothing like that. Just looking for your opinion.

 

[88GT]

I have never seen him admit a downside to legalizing drugs. he smears any study/article/comment against legalizing. I just want him to say legalizing and freedom in this scenario outweighs the harms that will come with it.

he also will not answer my question as to whethe he supports OTC stat us for everu pharmaceutical. if heroin should be free and legally obtainable, is he also advocating for lasix, zyprexa, percocet, etc.

Again, false dichotomy The harm already exists because the harm comes from usage, not legality. Since people are already using.....why not give people the freedom to be stupid? We do it on a million other things. The laws covering use of force causing injury already cover any of adverse outcomes you can come up with.

Might there be adverse consequences? Sure. It could happen, might even be an uptick in negative consequences for some people. So what? You doctors kill more people on a yearly basis than guns or pot. I'm not calling for you to be banned or censured, even though statistics show you folks to be much more dangerous than many things. That's not the issue. Alcohol is responsible for many more deaths than illegal drugs, You going to call for prohibition to be reinstated? Or do we let adults determine what to put in their own bodies? There are already penalties in place for people who harm others, so we already have a "safety net", of sorts.

So far the statistics in Colorado and Oregon are not bearing out the oh woe is me crowd. Time will tell whether it is a horror story, (highly doubtful) or nothing to worry about (the more likely outcome).
I see 88 has really already answered you, very well, too I might add. I get that you're against it. We've heard your side before. You're entitled to your opinion. But the facts just don't support continued prohibition.

I wasn't trying to speak for you. I just can't let the illogical argument stand. I hope I didn't step on your toes.

as stated in other threads, I am no longer against it, just not advocating for it. it's a non-issue in my life. I do however want the legalization crowd to be intellectually honest.

the "monopoly"... there are a million places to get a script these days. blah blah blah.

so... OTC for all pharmaceuticals? we can then pass a federal law making it illegal to sue the drug manufacturers. , prices would plummet.

Why not?

So are you in favor of legalizing everything. . coke, heroin, meth, ect? Its not a gotcha question, nothing like that. Just looking for your opinion.

Speaking only for myself: yes. Legalize it all. The percentage of people who would use but don't simply because of the legal status is infinitesimally small relative to the whole body of users. So the laws aren't really stopping any significant usage. THe harmful effects of usage are already a part of the discussion. We aren't really discussing harm vs. no harm when we talk about legal vs. illegal, despite the pro-prohibition crowd's implicative arguments.

 

[rambone]

So are you in favor of legalizing everything. . coke, heroin, meth, ect? Its not a gotcha question, nothing like that. Just looking for your opinion.

Without question, yes. Prohibition fails every test of logic and principle.

It is inconsistent with constitution, individual liberty, free markets, capitalism, small government, less taxes. It fails to obtain any level of sobriety or safety. It gives the government the perfect excuse to constantly search motorists and conduct thousands of no-knock raids. It would be stretch to find a single redeeming quality not based on fear and emotion.

 

[zippy23]

I think the argument of legalizing drugs is a tough one. One one hand we should have the freedom to be stupid, but that could include a millions things like running onto a freeway and getting hit by a truck and causing a huge wreck possibly killing others, that would be stupid. And the arguement is the same with selling things like meth, if you look into the meth communities, its amazing how the drug destroys the lives and the neighborhoods and affects everyone else around it, and hurts innocent people because of things like theft, assault, murder from these addicts trying to get money or steal stuff to sell to feed their addiction. It does not just hurt the user, it hurts the community. We could say the same thing about alcohol, so many drunk drivers, hurting others, or wives being beaten from a drunk guy, i mean the argument seems to run in circles for and against drugs being legal or illegal. I know one thing, of the people i've known who are dealers, i would never want them living next to me, thats for sure. I dont want that in my community and neither does anyone else. i dunno, its a tough question and one that should be talked about alot.

 

[88GT]

I think the argument of legalizing drugs is a tough one. One one hand we should have the freedom to be stupid, but that could include a millions things like running onto a freeway and getting hit by a truck and causing a huge wreck possibly killing others, that would be stupid. And the arguement is the same with selling things like meth, if you look into the meth communities, its amazing how the drug destroys the lives and the neighborhoods and affects everyone else around it, and hurts innocent people because of things like theft, assault, murder from these addicts trying to get money or steal stuff to sell to feed their addiction. It does not just hurt the user, it hurts the community. We could say the same thing about alcohol, so many drunk drivers, hurting others, or wives being beaten from a drunk guy, i mean the argument seems to run in circles for and against drugs being legal or illegal. I know one thing, of the people i've known who are dealers, i would never want them living next to me, thats for sure. I dont want that in my community and neither does anyone else. i dunno, its a tough question and one that should be talked about alot.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason for this is because the substances are illegal and the only ones willing/desiring to participate in their distribution are the unsavory sort. . When was the last time you looked at an MD in a white lab coat and got the heebie jeebies from him? And how many drugs can he provide that would kill if abused or misused? If all substances were legal, what would that look like from a market perspective?

 

[rambone]

This is the foundation of drug prohibition: fear tactics and emotion.

The logic of prohibitionists is frankly even more embarrassing today because they are ignoring several decades of data and defeated arguments.

 

[Leadeye]

Like most things I think follow the money will show the future. What system provides the biggest bag of cash to those groups in charge? That's how this issue will shake out.

 

[Longhair]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason for this is because the substances are illegal and the only ones willing/desiring to participate in their distribution are the unsavory sort. . When was the last time you looked at an MD in a white lab coat and got the heebie jeebies from him? And how many drugs can he provide that would kill if abused or misused? If all substances were legal, what would that look like from a market perspective?

This is just silly talk big pharma just wants to help the middle class without profit.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Doctors : Pharmaceuticals :: Car Salesmen : Automobiles

Just as there is no way any given car salesman, or car salesmen in general, can wield the power to keep a person from obtaining any particular make/model/year of automobile, there should be no way for any given doctor, nor doctors in general, could wield the power to keep a person from obtaining any particular pharmaceutical compound. Just as you may go to a car salesman, should you so choose, for counsel as to which automobile may best suit your needs, you should only go to a doctor for a consultation on which pharmaceutical may best suit your needs. Just as if you go against a salesman's advice and buy a different car, that salesman has absolutely no liabilities for that decision. Only if the salesman sells the person on a particular car which does not work out does the salesman hold liability. Likewise, if you go against a doctor's advice and take a pharmaceutical other than that he recommends, the doctor should be held blameless for that lack of heeded advice, but only if you take a doctor's pharmaceutical advice and it doesn't work out would there be medical liability.

 

[AA&E]

so... OTC for all pharmaceuticals? we can then pass a federal law making it illegal to sue the drug manufacturers. , prices would plummet.

This is fantasy. Just because costs of operating go down in no way dictates prices would plummet. We live in a capitalist driven society where profit margins and dividends for stockholders are the benchmark for successful business.

 

[AA&E]

Yes it is, but that's mainly due to laws in place, not doctor's rules. Many docs will give 12-month scripts on non-controlled substances. Many complicated patients need frequent monitoring of labs and checking for side effects. It would be malpractice to provide a year's worth of many meds without any guarantee of continued oversight (office visits)

in this era of massive legal ramifications for poor medical outcomes, do you really think docs will just accept the liability of long-term treatment plans without frequent evaluations? Tort reform would help greatly.

Many doctors? Are you one of them? My wife's neurologist charges $495/office visit. Spends maybe 10 minutes a month talking to her. And if she doesn't come in monthly, she doesn't get her prescriptions refilled. None of these are controlled substances. This has been going on for roughly 14 months.

Forgot to mention her visits are related to sporadic migraines. Sometimes she will have several spells a month. Other times she can go months without one.

 

[Expat]

This is the foundation of drug prohibition: fear tactics and emotion.

The logic of prohibitionists is frankly even more embarrassing today because they are ignoring several decades of data and defeated arguments.

Are these the same medical experts that you cite for your anti-vax crusades?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Many doctors? Are you one of them? My wife's neurologist charges $495/office visit. Spends maybe 10 minutes a month talking to her. And if she doesn't come in monthly, she doesn't get her prescriptions refilled. None of these are controlled substances. This has been going on for roughly 14 months.

Forgot to mention her visits are related to sporadic migraines. Sometimes she will have several spells a month. Other times she can go months without one.

Sounds like she needs a new doctor. $500/visit is absurd for ongoing care unless the doc is some crazy specialist and can charge that because of superior training/abilities, or the visit takes a long time or a procedure is performed. If she has sporadic issues, why not have her PCP write the scripts? Does the med require specific monitoring?

I am am ER doc, 99.5% of the time I do not write refills.