My dad recently retired after 30 years of practicing oncology and hematology in a private practice ran with a female colleague, located in an office building adjacent to a very large regional hospital. He also worked a supervising shift in the ER every Thursday night, simply because he found it easier to be in the ER since so many of his patients visited it while he was oncall, sometimes forcing him to go in anyway.
I guess you could say I enjoy recreational drugs and have done them all and my dad generally knows this and we've talked quite a bit about drugs, specifically the insane amount of opiates and benzos he used to prescribe to his cancer patients.
I've sort of gotten the impression the DEA was a hassle in his life and he would not want any attention gained by publicly saying anything but "drugs are bad" (aka the failed war on drugs). There would be no incentive for him to do this on a day to day basis; in fact, there would only be disincentives, at least in the short term.
One day in the early 00s, the DEA showed up at his practice unannounced and wanted to start auditing him on the spot. They told him he was in the top 10 opiate prescribers in his area and they were concerned. They had absolutely no paperwork, so my dad kicked them out of his office, and later the building via security. He told them to come back with a warrant. They never did.
What struck me about this story is how visibly upset he got at the idea of the DEA depriving people of comfort when they are in pain. When he told me this he said, very emotionally, "These people are dying and in pain and they want to look at paperwork?" I can only imagine how pissed off he was when it happened.
This anecdote is all to say I think that doctors probably take one look at any effort to delegitimize the war on drugs and say Nope. What's the point? To help society? Like they do every day as doctors? I just have never felt much of a "let's rock the boat" attitude from any doctors I've known personally regarding drug laws (keep in mind they live in a bubble where all of the drugs are available to them via an Rx pad -- this is very relevant to the enthusiasm drought IMO).
Based on a lifetime of being around doctors as personal and family friends (my mom is a medical doctor too), I don't think doctors are going to pick up this cause enthusiastically, even if it makes sense on paper.
Having gone some surgery few months ago where a miscommunication (let's name it this way) from the nurses about my prescription left one day longer in the hospital, made my cry out of pain and made me afraid of even trying to stand up, I must say that I never understood the idea that "let's refrain giving so much opiates to these patients who have a life-expectancy of few months because it might get then addicted".
If you can still edit, I recommend you move the last sentence to the start of your incredibly insightful anecdote:
Based on a lifetime of being around doctors as personal and family friends (my mom is a medical doctor too), I don't think doctors are going to pick up this cause enthusiastically, even if it makes sense on paper.
In my experience, a lot of doctors have already drank too much of the Kool-Aid. Of all my family physicians, only one was willing to have candid conversations about drugs. The rest would just shut down the conversation immediately and say all drugs are bad / we're not talking about this.
Same experience here.. I come from a family of doctors, and not a single one of them is particularly against the war on drugs it's quite the opposite. This even seems to trickle down to nurses and it's probably as someone else described because they are biased from having to deal with all situations where something goes wrong. Of course you will find the occasional morphine junkie doctor but it's probably not even interesting to them either since they have all the drugs they need available.
Doctors suffer from a kind of bias-- not sure the name of it-- but they only see people when they have problems. The only time doctors encounter the human experience of LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. is when something has gone wrong.
Unless the doctor has spent a lot of time at music festivals, burning man, etc. they
Sure, alcohol is a very dangerous drug, and causes all kinds of ill health, chronic conditions, emergency room visits, accidents, etc. But, because most doctors have had a typical experience with alcohol, from trying it as a teenager, binge drinking at college, and now social/casual drinking, they think it's safe, because they've had lots of experiences that didn't end with someone going to the hospital.
I'm not sure what the best route is for this, but asking doctors to take lead on this doesn't seem like an effective campaign.
By the same token, doctors are better equipped to understand (to the extent we can) the neurochemical reactions being caused by drugs and how they act on the brain. I would imagine a doctor who e.g. understands how many anti-depressants work by targeting the serotonin system would find it interesting the way many psychedelics also are serotonergic - people are basically just dumping analogues of their own neurotransmitters into their brain.
Similarly, look at the relationships chemically between sumatriptan (used to treat cluster headaches), psilocybin and DMT. Or the opioids, stimulants ... substances like coca and kratom that have been used for hundreds or thousands of years and analogues of which are used in medical settings all the time.
The argument that these are crazy, dangerous substances with zero legitimate medical value pretty instantly falls apart to anyone who understands how closely related nearly all of these substances are to pharma drugs widely understood to have legitimate medical value.
I'd in fact be interested to hear which "drugs" have the least relation to any recognized western medicine. Salvia divinorum?
There are several policy areas where doctors feel they have more to add than they actually do: tobacco discussion, whether or not bicycle helmets should be legally required, euthanasia/abortion issues (the moral aspects of it, not the technical ones), ...
I think it's a remnant from when doctors were part of the 'upper class' of the village (or even city), along with the priest, the school teacher, etc. Whereas today, in more educated circles at least in my observation, doctors are just body mechanics. They derive most of their status from their pay. (Much less so e.g. in the small town I'm from, where doctors are still respected just for being a doctor - but are paid less).
Edit to add: I'm not going to modify my comment above because that invalidates all the responses, but it seems like all responses are taking the wrong message from my post: I'm not making some sort of moral judgement on the work of doctors, what I'm saying is that doctors aren't any longer so special that they're part of the intellectual elite (and hence are consulted on topics being their expertise) just for being a doctor. Sure most doctors do work that's beneficial to many people, but so do teachers, and I don't think anyone is going to claim that teachers have high status in society (because of it, or at all).
That may have been true in the past but the situation has rapidly changed over the last decade. Amphetamine and opioid abuse stemming from over-prescription is becoming far too common and doctors are now experiencing the full spectrum from people genuinely in pain to high-risk heroin addicts. When the latest public health scare is a drug abuse epidemic attributed to the medical system instead of the black market, it's far harder to ignore the futility of the war on drugs.
So you're saying that doctors are only capable of evaluating personal experience, and not evidence collected by others? That puts a whole new spin on the medical profession.
It's even worse than this. Every panel of experts called to testify on this contains doctors from the treatment/prevention sector and that subgroup of doctors holds even harder on to this bias than a regular practitioner.
The thing is that doctors are hypocrites, they smoke, they drink, they eat junk food, they don't exercise, they do hard drugs and help themselves to unneeded prescriptions, they don't drink enough water, they don't sleep enough, etc.
They know what's best for people, but they also know that people can make informed decisions, they certainly do.
You think doctors don't experiment with drugs at university the way they do with alcohol?! At my university the medical students were renowned for their extra curricula "drug research".
Our laws on drugs are really quite arbitrary. In the UK people have factual evidence showing that drugs such as MDMA causes both less physiological and social harm than alcohol[0] so it's not really that we are trying to prevent harm rather than can't prohibit a behaviour that is now deeply ingrained in society.
Humans love intoxication. It's as old as time, with mountain people chewing coca leaves or brewing mescaline tea. Even in cultures where alcohol is banned such as the middle east, they simply found alternatives like coffee and tobacco.
Where do you even draw the line? Once you appreciate that everything is a "chemical" does binge-eating sugary foods count as intoxication? It's excessive by its definition and is harmful to the body and society. Should we start cracking down on "donut junkies"?
What about activities which release dopamine like gambling and videogames?
The treatment of the law on drugs is outdated and mainly political / social now more than it is actually in the interests of society. Don't take my word for it, here is an ex undercover policeman who turned his back on the fight against drugs[0] and HN discussion[1]
I'd wager a guess Trump snorted his share of blow in the 1980s, but congressional republicans and the private prison industry are going to be calling the shots on the drug war for the next 4 years.
We don't need doctors to point out that the War on Drugs is bound to perpetual failure. Don't even need a scholar. Anyone with two eyes wired to a working brain would reach the same conclusion. That being said, the more people speak up, the closer draws the day where we may transition drug policy into a saner state.
It's all rooted in good intentions, of course, as was the US ban on alcohol a century ago. But sometimes the road to mafias and murderous drug cartels is paved with good intentions. Time to wake up.
The alcohol and tobacco lobbyists will be dead set against the removal of prohibition. Although alcohol and other drugs tend to go together when binging, the amount of alcohol consumed will likely be less. Additionally a mild drug like Marijuana will likely be preferred by some people who would traditionally have a glass of wine or beer every day after work instead of a stronger and more dangerous drug like Alcohol.
That seems doubtful. The glass of wine or beer is, firstly, more palatable than marijuana, secondly, you can do it indoors without everything smelling like weed, and thirdly, the mild depressant effect of one alcoholic beverage is way more pleasant than getting high. Not to mention the cost.
Private Prisons (through their lobbyists) are likely one of the main opposers of loosening the War on Drugs. We don't know clearly what they lobby for - they would never admit it publicly, but it is not hard to guess. Stopping the War on Drugs would be a cut to their profit margins.
Couldn't read the article, but I think the issue is that doctors aren't directly more qualified to call for drug policy reform than anyone else.
Hear me out: Doctors are aware of the side effects and dangers of drugs, and the harm they cause people who take enough drugs to require medical help.
However, a doctor isn't specifically informed about the cost of prison, the damage imprisoning someone does to their families, and their communities, and their prospects for rehabilitation.
Drug policy reform calls for a comparison of the impact of softening drug law against the social impact of imprisoning the people we enforce drug laws on.
There just isn't a profession with credible authority in that specific area. It's sort of like what a public policy think tank should make a recommendation based on. But I don't think any corporate interests align with the message enough to fund that sort of research/lobbying.
>>But the effectiveness of prohibition laws, colloquially known as the “war on drugs,” must be judged on outcomes. And too often the war on drugs plays out as a war on the millions of people who use drugs, and disproportionately on people who are poor or from ethnic minorities and on women.
>There just isn't a profession with credible authority in that specific area. It's sort of like what a public policy think tank should make a recommendation based on. But I don't think any corporate interests align with the message enough to fund that sort of research/lobbying.
You don't need a particular profession to label the war on drugs an abject failure. Just examine the results. The war on drugs has not made one dent in the demand or the supply. It has led to ever more potent drugs with lower prices and profits going to violent criminals. It's a joke
It's amazing that we just still live in a system where the people who methodically know nothing about something can end up controlling the majority share.
The war on drugs was never about health, but was about racism. One poster talked of Chasing the Scream which details this. So the idea that doctors should be advocates for the ending of the WoD just continues the false rationalisation that health is at the heart of the WoD. I can ask 1 question which will show that health has nothing to do with it: why is hemp illegal?
What is at the heart of ending the WoD is human rights; a topic which doctors have no more knowledge than anyone else.
This comment strikes me as an example of race reductionism that does more harm than good. The war on drugs unquestionably has a racist component and racism contributed to its origins, but it's not solely an issue of race and affects more than just minorities. Thinking of it being as "about racism" makes collaboration with natural allies more difficult.
In this case those natural allies include the white working class, which suffers greatly from drug addiction, as well as doctors and other health care workers who value the integrity of their profession and believe drug policy should be focused on improving outcomes for drug users.
Social action in America has fundamentally always been about compromise. Race, class and gender reductionism discourage it. It's both possible and productive to say you empathize with the problems someone else faces, your set of problems overlaps, and the two of you can cooperate without debating whose problems are more significant.
Why physicians? Because the proletariat still have a little bit of say on policy in this country. If you ask citizens with strong anti-drug stances why they support tough drug laws, very few (if any) will say "because I hate minorities."
So we've got to change the minds of the voting base. Physicians are highly respected in this country and to have them come out en masse and state that drug addiction is a health issue and not a criminal issue would do a lot to change the minds of voters...which could then slightly change the minds of our lawmakers.
While the official war on drugs was started as a means of suppressing and discrediting blacks by the Nixon administration, the reason it won't end any time soon is that it has long been and continues to be both a revenue stream and a tool of political disruption for the CIA and DEA. (Not that this changes the fact that it still today results in the suppression of poor and minorities.)
We (the US) are in the middle of an opioid addiction epidemic. The surgeon general has just made this his highest priority - and physicians are now expected to take a soft stance on drug use? While I am all for reform - there seems to be a major disconnect here.
This pub is f/k/a the British Medical Journal. They're addressing a worldwide audience of physicians and health-care professionals. It seems a bit narrowminded to interpret their suggestions in a US-only context.
There's plenty of evidence supporting the position of this editorial. Various nations have tried some form of decriminalization. The effects have been generally positive in places like Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
But, of course, if drug users are the face of sentient evil, then decriminalizing the drugs is the same as failing to resist evil. This is why selling the idea in the US is very difficult. We've been taught for generations that drug users are inherently evil, and treating them is, at best, a waste of time.
US physicians have enough trouble with the federal government as it is. The US government has a century-long history of making the professional lives of dissenting physicians very difficult indeed. It's unreasonable to expect many of them to embrace this cause with public speech.
Here in Massachusetts USA, the voters recently chose to end the prohibition on cannabis (following the lead of Colorado and Washington state). The Roman Catholic church (Boston diocese) chose to compel their clergy to speak against this initiative from their pulpits on the Sunday before election. (Huh! I thought electioneering from the pulpit was prohibited. I guess not for the RCs.) I know a couple of law-enforcement leaders who privately supported the end of prohibition, but didn't dare speak publicly.
The end of prohibition has to come from voters in the US. Physicians can't do it: the government can revoke their licenses. Legislatures can't do it; they're much too beholden to the military-industrial complex that fights the war on drugs. Religious leaders can't do it: to declare that certain behaviors aren't evil erodes their worldly authority, which comes mostly from the ability to condemn "those" people, whoever they are.
HAHA! Doctors? they are the reason for the failure. Doctors were directly responsible for the overdose and death of my wife. The epidemic of drug abuse which starts by over the counter addiction is perpetuated by DOCTORS.
Citizens need to lead for calls of drug policy reform. We are the masters of our destiny, The problems surrounding drug abuse directly affect US, the people who live in our communities. Start going to your local city council meetings and take a stand, voice your opinion. This isnt going to be solved by Doctors! The majority of Doctors are direct beneficiaries to this abuse. I am not saying EVERY doctor is bad, I am saying that they are part of a business and drugs are a high margin product.
My cousin nearly lost her home and everything she had due to an opioid painkiller addiction -- from drugs she was prescribed by a doctor after major surgery. This has become a silent epidemic, and a gigantic one, and it's ruining lives more and more every day.
My condolences on your loss. I wish there were an easy way to put an end to this horrific and needless suffering, but I fear things will only get worse before they get any better.
Ok, end the war on drugs. Force the ACLU and legislatures to enact laws allowing for forcing adults into mandatory detox and/or mental/rehab programs based on their drug use.
Live in a liberal area sometime and experience the excuses and lack of action around heroin addicts and meth heads and their criminal activities for the next fix or based off their current hit...
Live in a liberal area sometime and experience the excuses and lack of action around heroin addicts and meth heads and their criminal activities for the next fix or based off their current hit...
Don't those same problems exist in conservative areas too? I grew up in a small town in a pretty conservative state and I saw many more serious drug problems up close there than I ever see now in a mid-sized city in a very liberal state.
"Ok, end the war on drugs. Force the ACLU and legislatures to enact laws allowing for forcing adults into mandatory detox and/or mental/rehab programs based on their drug use."
Or, you know, actually look at facts instead of only the percentage of folks that have a major issue.
I'd not force a person to give up their daily evening pot habit any more than I'd force a person to give up their two-glass-a-day wine habit. I don't freaking care if a couple sends the kids away to the grandparents for a weekend so they can drop some acid. I don't care if someone does cocaine twice a year (Yes, I've met some folks like this).
Most concerning, however, is the US's general policy of using AA or NA as the standard program for detox or rehab. While it works for a few, it is really lacking in substance - even for folks that aren't actually addicted, merely get caught with some drugs during a traffic stop. Sure, it works for some folks, but I'd personally never be able to follow through due to my lack of belief in some "higher power" (in other words, god) nor do I believe that everyone is an addict for life.
[+] [-] gotthemwmds|9 years ago|reply
I guess you could say I enjoy recreational drugs and have done them all and my dad generally knows this and we've talked quite a bit about drugs, specifically the insane amount of opiates and benzos he used to prescribe to his cancer patients.
I've sort of gotten the impression the DEA was a hassle in his life and he would not want any attention gained by publicly saying anything but "drugs are bad" (aka the failed war on drugs). There would be no incentive for him to do this on a day to day basis; in fact, there would only be disincentives, at least in the short term.
One day in the early 00s, the DEA showed up at his practice unannounced and wanted to start auditing him on the spot. They told him he was in the top 10 opiate prescribers in his area and they were concerned. They had absolutely no paperwork, so my dad kicked them out of his office, and later the building via security. He told them to come back with a warrant. They never did.
What struck me about this story is how visibly upset he got at the idea of the DEA depriving people of comfort when they are in pain. When he told me this he said, very emotionally, "These people are dying and in pain and they want to look at paperwork?" I can only imagine how pissed off he was when it happened.
This anecdote is all to say I think that doctors probably take one look at any effort to delegitimize the war on drugs and say Nope. What's the point? To help society? Like they do every day as doctors? I just have never felt much of a "let's rock the boat" attitude from any doctors I've known personally regarding drug laws (keep in mind they live in a bubble where all of the drugs are available to them via an Rx pad -- this is very relevant to the enthusiasm drought IMO).
Based on a lifetime of being around doctors as personal and family friends (my mom is a medical doctor too), I don't think doctors are going to pick up this cause enthusiastically, even if it makes sense on paper.
[+] [-] woliveirajr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j_s|9 years ago|reply
Based on a lifetime of being around doctors as personal and family friends (my mom is a medical doctor too), I don't think doctors are going to pick up this cause enthusiastically, even if it makes sense on paper.
[+] [-] dyeje|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Galaxeblaffer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lawpoop|9 years ago|reply
Doctors suffer from a kind of bias-- not sure the name of it-- but they only see people when they have problems. The only time doctors encounter the human experience of LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. is when something has gone wrong.
Unless the doctor has spent a lot of time at music festivals, burning man, etc. they
Sure, alcohol is a very dangerous drug, and causes all kinds of ill health, chronic conditions, emergency room visits, accidents, etc. But, because most doctors have had a typical experience with alcohol, from trying it as a teenager, binge drinking at college, and now social/casual drinking, they think it's safe, because they've had lots of experiences that didn't end with someone going to the hospital.
I'm not sure what the best route is for this, but asking doctors to take lead on this doesn't seem like an effective campaign.
[+] [-] themgt|9 years ago|reply
Similarly, look at the relationships chemically between sumatriptan (used to treat cluster headaches), psilocybin and DMT. Or the opioids, stimulants ... substances like coca and kratom that have been used for hundreds or thousands of years and analogues of which are used in medical settings all the time.
The argument that these are crazy, dangerous substances with zero legitimate medical value pretty instantly falls apart to anyone who understands how closely related nearly all of these substances are to pharma drugs widely understood to have legitimate medical value.
I'd in fact be interested to hear which "drugs" have the least relation to any recognized western medicine. Salvia divinorum?
[+] [-] roel_v|9 years ago|reply
I think it's a remnant from when doctors were part of the 'upper class' of the village (or even city), along with the priest, the school teacher, etc. Whereas today, in more educated circles at least in my observation, doctors are just body mechanics. They derive most of their status from their pay. (Much less so e.g. in the small town I'm from, where doctors are still respected just for being a doctor - but are paid less).
Edit to add: I'm not going to modify my comment above because that invalidates all the responses, but it seems like all responses are taking the wrong message from my post: I'm not making some sort of moral judgement on the work of doctors, what I'm saying is that doctors aren't any longer so special that they're part of the intellectual elite (and hence are consulted on topics being their expertise) just for being a doctor. Sure most doctors do work that's beneficial to many people, but so do teachers, and I don't think anyone is going to claim that teachers have high status in society (because of it, or at all).
[+] [-] robbiep|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akiselev|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greglindahl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tremon|9 years ago|reply
Only half on-topic, but it's called selection bias.
[+] [-] Beltiras|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] disordinary|9 years ago|reply
They know what's best for people, but they also know that people can make informed decisions, they certainly do.
[+] [-] martinald|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shshhdhs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yomly|9 years ago|reply
Humans love intoxication. It's as old as time, with mountain people chewing coca leaves or brewing mescaline tea. Even in cultures where alcohol is banned such as the middle east, they simply found alternatives like coffee and tobacco.
[0]https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/...
[+] [-] yomly|9 years ago|reply
What about activities which release dopamine like gambling and videogames?
The treatment of the law on drugs is outdated and mainly political / social now more than it is actually in the interests of society. Don't take my word for it, here is an ex undercover policeman who turned his back on the fight against drugs[0] and HN discussion[1]
[0] https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2...
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12365667
[+] [-] haberman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lamontcg|9 years ago|reply
I'd wager a guess Trump snorted his share of blow in the 1980s, but congressional republicans and the private prison industry are going to be calling the shots on the drug war for the next 4 years.
[+] [-] AngrySkillzz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] int_19h|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvindahl|9 years ago|reply
It's all rooted in good intentions, of course, as was the US ban on alcohol a century ago. But sometimes the road to mafias and murderous drug cartels is paved with good intentions. Time to wake up.
[+] [-] ImTalking|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] disordinary|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GunboatDiplomat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
Snopes dissected this a bit: http://www.snopes.com/drug-law-lobbying-by-corrections-corpo...
[+] [-] brighton36|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|9 years ago|reply
Hear me out: Doctors are aware of the side effects and dangers of drugs, and the harm they cause people who take enough drugs to require medical help.
However, a doctor isn't specifically informed about the cost of prison, the damage imprisoning someone does to their families, and their communities, and their prospects for rehabilitation.
Drug policy reform calls for a comparison of the impact of softening drug law against the social impact of imprisoning the people we enforce drug laws on.
There just isn't a profession with credible authority in that specific area. It's sort of like what a public policy think tank should make a recommendation based on. But I don't think any corporate interests align with the message enough to fund that sort of research/lobbying.
[+] [-] FullMtlAlcoholc|9 years ago|reply
>>But the effectiveness of prohibition laws, colloquially known as the “war on drugs,” must be judged on outcomes. And too often the war on drugs plays out as a war on the millions of people who use drugs, and disproportionately on people who are poor or from ethnic minorities and on women.
>There just isn't a profession with credible authority in that specific area. It's sort of like what a public policy think tank should make a recommendation based on. But I don't think any corporate interests align with the message enough to fund that sort of research/lobbying.
You don't need a particular profession to label the war on drugs an abject failure. Just examine the results. The war on drugs has not made one dent in the demand or the supply. It has led to ever more potent drugs with lower prices and profits going to violent criminals. It's a joke
[+] [-] jayajay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImTalking|9 years ago|reply
What is at the heart of ending the WoD is human rights; a topic which doctors have no more knowledge than anyone else.
[+] [-] apatters|9 years ago|reply
In this case those natural allies include the white working class, which suffers greatly from drug addiction, as well as doctors and other health care workers who value the integrity of their profession and believe drug policy should be focused on improving outcomes for drug users.
Social action in America has fundamentally always been about compromise. Race, class and gender reductionism discourage it. It's both possible and productive to say you empathize with the problems someone else faces, your set of problems overlaps, and the two of you can cooperate without debating whose problems are more significant.
[+] [-] dikdik|9 years ago|reply
So we've got to change the minds of the voting base. Physicians are highly respected in this country and to have them come out en masse and state that drug addiction is a health issue and not a criminal issue would do a lot to change the minds of voters...which could then slightly change the minds of our lawmakers.
[+] [-] ta_donk_gt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wallace_f|9 years ago|reply
It's remarkable to me that this WoD still exists. When Obama was elected this is something I thought he would address.
[+] [-] yodsanklai|9 years ago|reply
Weren't bans on drugs pervasive throughout history?
[+] [-] dfsegoat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karmelapple|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OliverJones|9 years ago|reply
There's plenty of evidence supporting the position of this editorial. Various nations have tried some form of decriminalization. The effects have been generally positive in places like Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
It may be time for some of these nations to propose, and sign off on, an alternative to the 1951 anti-drug treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_... Maybe physicians can lead the way in some nations.
But, of course, if drug users are the face of sentient evil, then decriminalizing the drugs is the same as failing to resist evil. This is why selling the idea in the US is very difficult. We've been taught for generations that drug users are inherently evil, and treating them is, at best, a waste of time.
US physicians have enough trouble with the federal government as it is. The US government has a century-long history of making the professional lives of dissenting physicians very difficult indeed. It's unreasonable to expect many of them to embrace this cause with public speech.
Here in Massachusetts USA, the voters recently chose to end the prohibition on cannabis (following the lead of Colorado and Washington state). The Roman Catholic church (Boston diocese) chose to compel their clergy to speak against this initiative from their pulpits on the Sunday before election. (Huh! I thought electioneering from the pulpit was prohibited. I guess not for the RCs.) I know a couple of law-enforcement leaders who privately supported the end of prohibition, but didn't dare speak publicly.
The end of prohibition has to come from voters in the US. Physicians can't do it: the government can revoke their licenses. Legislatures can't do it; they're much too beholden to the military-industrial complex that fights the war on drugs. Religious leaders can't do it: to declare that certain behaviors aren't evil erodes their worldly authority, which comes mostly from the ability to condemn "those" people, whoever they are.
It will take a generation, or more.
[+] [-] highprofit|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pgnas|9 years ago|reply
Citizens need to lead for calls of drug policy reform. We are the masters of our destiny, The problems surrounding drug abuse directly affect US, the people who live in our communities. Start going to your local city council meetings and take a stand, voice your opinion. This isnt going to be solved by Doctors! The majority of Doctors are direct beneficiaries to this abuse. I am not saying EVERY doctor is bad, I am saying that they are part of a business and drugs are a high margin product.
[+] [-] beedogs|9 years ago|reply
My condolences on your loss. I wish there were an easy way to put an end to this horrific and needless suffering, but I fear things will only get worse before they get any better.
[+] [-] rosege|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zanethomas|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squozzer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmspring|9 years ago|reply
Live in a liberal area sometime and experience the excuses and lack of action around heroin addicts and meth heads and their criminal activities for the next fix or based off their current hit...
Or the long term mental effects.
[+] [-] Johnny555|9 years ago|reply
Don't those same problems exist in conservative areas too? I grew up in a small town in a pretty conservative state and I saw many more serious drug problems up close there than I ever see now in a mid-sized city in a very liberal state.
[+] [-] Broken_Hippo|9 years ago|reply
Or, you know, actually look at facts instead of only the percentage of folks that have a major issue.
I'd not force a person to give up their daily evening pot habit any more than I'd force a person to give up their two-glass-a-day wine habit. I don't freaking care if a couple sends the kids away to the grandparents for a weekend so they can drop some acid. I don't care if someone does cocaine twice a year (Yes, I've met some folks like this).
Most concerning, however, is the US's general policy of using AA or NA as the standard program for detox or rehab. While it works for a few, it is really lacking in substance - even for folks that aren't actually addicted, merely get caught with some drugs during a traffic stop. Sure, it works for some folks, but I'd personally never be able to follow through due to my lack of belief in some "higher power" (in other words, god) nor do I believe that everyone is an addict for life.