Posted by Route66Kid on July 08, 1998 at 02:00:22:
In Reply to: Then we agree posted by Chris on July 07, 1998 at 11:20:31:
: I think we are talking about two different things, and I suspect we could each agree with the other:
: Chris: Politicians should not limit a doctor's treatment options based on the prevaling ideology.
: Route66Kid: Even if it were legal, marijuana is not a good medicine and should not be prescribed.
: Fair enough? If you and other people in the medical profession choose, based on evidence, not to perscribe marijuana to your paitents, then more power to you. That is not only your perogative, it is your responsibility. But certainly you should have that perogative, right? The fact that the drug is illegal makes your point moot and limits your options. Similarly, until last year, most organ tranplants were not permitted in Japan because lawmakers put the prevailing ideology into law. Can we agree that doctors should make these decisions, and not politicians?
Chris, you've hit close to home for me with some of your wording regarding whether or not marijuana should be legally allowed into the practitioner's armamentarium. In the legislative debate preceding the recent passage of my states Prescriptive Authority Act, some state senator vocalized his disapproval of allowing nurses, regardless of training scope, to precribe medication by stating "They might prescribe LSD!" I do however agree with your fundamental premise. It still remains that marijuana has an uphill fight for widespread acceptance as a medicinal. This is largely due to
its reputation as a recreational abuse substance and, more practically, the fact that inhaling smoke is universally considered harmful or at very least not healthy. When it comes to formulating public policy I hope the politicians will have well guided input.
Regards,
Route66Kid