4 ms·

You're sidestepping grandparent's point about abolishing any legal limits on pharmaceuticals. How would such a world work? Prescriptions would be pointless sinc

by smcin 3y ago

You're sidestepping grandparent's point about abolishing any legal limits on pharmaceuticals. How would such a world work? Prescriptions would be pointless since consenting adults could just sell/trade them.

Amasuriel 3y ago
The tone of your comment seems to indicate you think this is obviously a bad thing? Prescriptions would just be doctors recommendations in this case. There could still be mechanisms to softly encourage only this usage, like insurance only covering doctor prescribed drugs. Is your concern about painkiller addiction and abuse or about people hurting themselves by taking drugs without good understanding of them or something else?
throwawayadvsec 3y ago
Prescriptions wouldn't be pointless. I can get access to any drugs on earth, I'm still not going to try any random unprescribed med for the fun of it. A prescription means your doctor said I think you need this, at this dosage, for this long. You can even get prescriptions for OTC stuff. A prescription isn't a way to allow you to take something, it's a way to tell you what your doctor thinks you need.
Clubber 3y ago
>Prescriptions would be pointless since consenting adults could just sell/trade them. A good chunk of the population operates this way right now. Also why pay a $150 kickback to doctors just to write something on a pad that probably shouldn't require a prescription in the first place?
- smcin 3y ago
  That's an American complaint about an American problem. Basic healthcare in the rest of the developed world functions ok, unlike the US. And why the US created that setup (between the 1960s-80s) is a political discussion. We're straying from the general premise here about about abolishing any legal limits on pharmaceuticals. Or else, we're changing the topic to an argument-from-consequences based on the idiosyncrasies of US healthcare and its costs.
edgyquant 3y ago
What’s wrong with this? A prescription would just be a doctors recommended amount of a substance and not a license to have an otherwise illegal substance as it now

by smcin 3y ago

Amasuriel 3y ago

The tone of your comment seems to indicate you think this is obviously a bad thing? Prescriptions would just be doctors recommendations in this case. There could still be mechanisms to softly encourage only this usage, like insurance only covering doctor prescribed drugs. Is your concern about painkiller addiction and abuse or about people hurting themselves by taking drugs without good understanding of them or something else?

throwawayadvsec 3y ago

Prescriptions wouldn't be pointless. I can get access to any drugs on earth, I'm still not going to try any random unprescribed med for the fun of it. A prescription means your doctor said I think you need this, at this dosage, for this long. You can even get prescriptions for OTC stuff. A prescription isn't a way to allow you to take something, it's a way to tell you what your doctor thinks you need.

Clubber 3y ago

>Prescriptions would be pointless since consenting adults could just sell/trade them. A good chunk of the population operates this way right now. Also why pay a $150 kickback to doctors just to write something on a pad that probably shouldn't require a prescription in the first place?

smcin 3y ago
That's an American complaint about an American problem. Basic healthcare in the rest of the developed world functions ok, unlike the US. And why the US created that setup (between the 1960s-80s) is a political discussion. We're straying from the general premise here about about abolishing any legal limits on pharmaceuticals. Or else, we're changing the topic to an argument-from-consequences based on the idiosyncrasies of US healthcare and its costs.

edgyquant 3y ago

What’s wrong with this? A prescription would just be a doctors recommended amount of a substance and not a license to have an otherwise illegal substance as it now