Bad weekend for MS continues beyond tornadoes….

[Perd Hapley]

It is logical, you are apparently just not following it for whatever reason. It is not logical to burden law abiding people and prevent lawful and non-harmful activity when it is not going to stop the behavior/activity you are actually concerned about. It is arguably immoral to disarm law abiding citizens when you aren't going to be capable of disarming criminals for years, if not decades. We just don't have the political climate that would allow us to secure the southern border and implement checkpoints that allow the confiscation of guns from criminals.

What I addressed was the ad nauseum, broad based statement constantly made by hard line gun advocates that “more gun laws won’t work because criminals don’t follow gun laws”. That broad based statement was, is, and always will be idiotic when applied in the general sense when applied to guns or any other topic. You’ve typed up, I don’t know what to call it….a rebuttal? A response to an argument or a proposal that I never made, complete with context that I never implied. Never in this thread have I commented for or against any specific gun control proposal. I only pointed out the logical fallacy of that particular argument.

There is an argument for that

From any sane person who also isn’t a drug dealer? Agree to disagree.

but I was specifically referencing the fact that lots of burdens are put on providers that do not stop pill mills but do make doctors decide it's not worth their hassle to treat pain and the patient can just deal with it. Then when compassionate doctors end up prescribing a lot of opioids because they are some of the few that take their commitment to their patients seriously and aren't going to leave them in unnecessary pain because of an administrative headache, they draw the attention of the DEA and get second guessed on every prescription. People do make the argument that they should not burden doctors and patients in pain with regulations that aren't going to stop pill mills or the underground market.

I never made mention of that at all in my example. Even if you strip all those regulations and audits away and provided a best-case scenario for those compassionate doctors, people will still need a prescription from a medical professional for a Schedule I opioid painkiller….which is the only thing I mentioned. All the things you mentioned above are unrelated talking points, which seems to be a running theme in your reply.

 

[She Mate Me]

Y'all got it figured out yet??

 

[johnson86-1]

How often is this happening- the 'compassionate' doctor scenario? Out of every ER case, surgery, etc etc- what % is even getting opioids to take home? Of that group, what % is getting anything more than a limited amount for the initial couple days post surgery or whatever?

I honestly dont know the answer to the questions. I genuinely figured doctors everywhere are like the ones Ive seen and heard about(from family/friends), and they basically just dont even prescribe most any opioid.
I think Tylenol with Codeine is the only thing I can remember people being prescribed in the last decade. Hell, my wife broke her shoulder and tendons, tore her ACL, and fractured something in her back in 2020 and once she left the ER all she got was OTC Tylenol.

That is unfortunately the case and that is my point. Even when it's appropriate, they'd rather their patient be in pain than deal with the potential headache of prescribing even a hydrocodone. That's why compassionate doctors that put the patient first are at risk. People with chronic pain find a doctor that doesn't want them to suffer unnecessarily, so it ends up looking like he's prescribing a lot of opioids, which he is, because patients that need opioids are filtered to him or her b/c other doctors just tell them it's better for them to suffer than for them to risk any blowback for prescribing opioids.

 

[johnson86-1]

What I addressed was the ad nauseum, broad based statement constantly made by hard line gun advocates that “more gun laws won’t work because criminals don’t follow gun laws”. That broad based statement was, is, and always will be idiotic when applied in the general sense when applied to guns or any other topic. You’ve typed up, I don’t know what to call it….a rebuttal? A response to an argument or a proposal that I never made, complete with context that I never implied. Never in this thread have I commented for or against any specific gun control proposal. I only pointed out the logical fallacy of that particular argument.



From any sane person who also isn’t a drug dealer? Agree to disagree.

I don't really trust this poll b/c I doubt the people responding really were considering the implications, but there's this: https://www.newsweek.com/two-thirds-american-voters-support-decriminalizing-all-drugs-poll-1599645

I also don't think it takes an insane person to think: "we've enriched cartels, pushed people to more and more dangerous drugs, and more than occasionally have caused essentially state sanctioned anal rape of people for voluntarily putting things in their body the government doesn't want them to put in their body; maybe it'd be better to take a hands off approach".

I'm not sold on it, but that seems to be at least a defensible position. Especially since we've already had a somewhat similar argument over alcohol and I think pretty conclusively shown that the prohibitionists were wrong and created a lot of harm. Opioids are different from alcohol, and I think a greater number of users would get sucked into abuse, but it's at least close enough to not be able to claim it's crazy to think prohibition causes more harm than it prevents (especially if you take into account moral questions of whether harm imposed by the state is more morally objectionable than harms created by individuals own decisions).

I never made mention of that at all in my example. Even if you strip all those regulations and audits away and provided a best-case scenario for those compassionate doctors, people will still need a prescription from a medical professional for a Schedule I opioid painkiller….which is the only thing I mentioned. All the things you mentioned above are unrelated talking points, which seems to be a running theme in your reply.

Of course you didn't mention that, because you don't understand the logic of the argument you are claiming is stupid, which is why you couldn't think of another situation where the same logic is used. I was just pointing out that you are wrong by providing a readily available example where a similar argument is used.

 

[Perd Hapley]

I don't really trust this poll b/c I doubt the people responding really were considering the implications, but there's this: https://www.newsweek.com/two-thirds-american-voters-support-decriminalizing-all-drugs-poll-1599645

I also don't think it takes an insane person to think: "we've enriched cartels, pushed people to more and more dangerous drugs, and more than occasionally have caused essentially state sanctioned anal rape of people for voluntarily putting things in their body the government doesn't want them to put in their body; maybe it'd be better to take a hands off approach".

I'm not sold on it, but that seems to be at least a defensible position. Especially since we've already had a somewhat similar argument over alcohol and I think pretty conclusively shown that the prohibitionists were wrong and created a lot of harm. Opioids are different from alcohol, and I think a greater number of users would get sucked into abuse, but it's at least close enough to not be able to claim it's crazy to think prohibition causes more harm than it prevents (especially if you take into account moral questions of whether harm imposed by the state is more morally objectionable than harms created by individuals own decisions).

So, you’ve posted results from a poll of 800 people, which you admittedly don’t even trust…..which again doesn’t even apply to the original example at all. Newsflash - Schedule I opioids don’t even need to be decriminalized. They are already 100% legal, given out legally to millions of Americans each day, and legally consumed by millions of Americans each day. There are simply common sense restrictions to their free access for any and all people just like there are with alcohol, cigarettes, and, yes, guns. The restriction in this case is a prescription from a doctor. And no, its still not not a defensible position that they should be freely available over the counter….just like its not a defensible position that an 8 year old should be able to buy alcohol or cigarettes from a convenience store, or a that convicted murderer who just completed a 15-year sentence should be able to waltz right into Bass Pro Shops and buy a pistol.

Of course you didn't mention that, because you don't understand the logic of the argument you are claiming is stupid, which is why you couldn't think of another situation where the same logic is used. I was just pointing out that you are wrong by providing a readily available example where a similar argument is used.

Nah, I understand the logic just fine and the original example was / is perfectly applicable. You’ve just been dead set on doing probably the most absurd case of contrarian mental gymnastics I’ve ever seen to try and disprove or discredit that example. Good day.