3 ms·

Wouldn't needing a prescription be... a control?

• leoh 1y ago
  Yes, but the DEA is unrelentingly cranky and likes to tell physicians how to practice medicine despite swearing up and down that they would never, ever do that.
  • klooney 1y ago
    California used to have a medical marijuana program where access was supposed to be controlled by requiring licensed physicians to prescribe it. Turns out there's enough disgraced doctors to rubber stamp huge volumes of prescriptions, rendering the control a joke. If the DEA isn't cranky, we go back to pill mills.
    • leoh 1y ago
      Not sure what the problem is, except for the DEA again. Have you heard about how alcohol is sold?
      • klooney 1y ago
        If you want to limit the availability of a substance, you can't rely on Responsible Professionals acting as gatekeepers- too many will take the money and run.
• ranger_danger 1y ago
  When people in the (US at least) healthcare industry use the word "control" they are specifically referring to the well-defined "controlled substances". In the context of the legally defined controlled substances or "scheduled drugs", no, needing a prescription does not automatically mean it is a controlled drug. Is a prescription inherently a type of 'control' against who can access certain drugs? Sure, but I don't think anyone was arguing that.