is summarized in one sentence: to send doctors. People can use a drug if a doctor not seem right. Some typical examples of this approach is the legal supply of methadone or heroin to heroin prescription, or law passed by referendum in 1996 in California that allows the use of marijuana to patients if a doctor considers it appropriate.
Historically, one of the arguments used by drug warriors was to distinguish medical use, legitimate, and recreational use, unlawful, dangerous, antisocial and, therefore, prosecuted and punished with jail if necessary. The primacy of medicine in our current society in defining priorities and values \u200b\u200bfor many people makes logical the argument that, despite the evil, immoral or unhealthy to use a drug for fun, this is no longer so when taken medically necessary. The great danger, in my view, this approach is that keeps a significant shortcoming of the ban: its attack on individual freedom and the right to own body. Therefore, to transfer power from politicians to doctors is only a change of masters. I find it obvious that it is outrageous to deny drug use to those who need to relieve or cure their ailments. In this sense, beyond the original moralism of the ban is obviously right and necessary step. But if it is to make us forget the basic injustice involved in denying the individual the right to freely make decisions that affect their own bodies, medicalization guardianship only replaced by another. Perhaps a phrase of Sallust explain why the success medicalizing positions are beginning to have: "Most people do not want to be free, just want a fair master."
0 comments:
Post a Comment