Megan asks;
Next tragedy: Michael Jackson. Oxycontin. Discussion question for libertarians: assume we all agree that drugs should be legal. Is a doctor who enables an addicted patient to take fatal doses a good doctor, or should he be liable for malpractice? Discussion question for non-libertarians: how, pray tell, is this an argument in support of our current draconian drug laws?It isn't.
Slightly longer answer to stupid question:
MJ was, like Nixon's pal Elvis, abusing legal drugs. What the fuck does this have to do with pot or cocaine?
The stupid, it burns. I want to respond more but it's only downhill from here.
Posts
7 comments:
"Is a doctor who enables an addicted patient to take fatal doses a good doctor..."
What a ridiculously stupid question. Every time a doctor gives me a prescription for painkillers or sleeping pills, he is technically "enabling" me to take a fatal dose. How's he or she supposed to stop me from taking the whole bottle at once? No doctor with a brain is going to administer more than controlled doses to patients they know to be addicted to a particular drug. Most prescription addicts know to spread their habit around to several doctors' script pads to keep them from finding out, or they buy them illegally like they would street drugs.
How long has she been getting paid to be stupid every single fucking day now? Isn't it coming on two years? Christ.
Take a breath. Have an iced tea or coffee, and then respond. I think the rest of us are too lazy to register and respond over at The Atlantic.
She thinks she's being so clever asking if we need draconian laws to regulate narcotics, when we're already discussing legal, regulated drugs (a physician needs a DEA ID number in order to write prescriptions - but I assume that Megan is smart enough to know that already).
I still don't get what the argument in "how is this an argument" is. I wish she could be at least coherent. It would make pointing out how stoopiding she is much easier.
Everyone beat me to the inherent idiocy and pointlessness of the question, but I'm also amused at Megan's apparent assumption that non-Libertarians would not only support marijuana bans, but also how such bans are currently enforced.
Well, duh, if you disagree with her then obviously you're an unreasonable idiot who has adopted the least well thought out position on Earth.
Okay, but isn't "Discussion question for libertarians" a fun new meme?
E.g., Discussion question for libertarians: Assuming all drugs should be legal, if I give strychnine-laced brownies to Newt Gingrich, and he says, "What are these?" and I say, "They're strychnine-laced brownies, Newt," and he smiles to show that he has a sense of humor, and eats a couple, and dies, what's the problem?
"Is a doctor who enables an addicted patient to take fatal doses a good doctor..."
Piling on the stupid...MJ's doctor wasn't merely "a" doctor, but a shill who had clearly given up on his principles in order to stay on the payroll of a fantastically wealthy nut job. So it's not as if his case applies to the general population. Anyway, shouldn't Libertarians be applauding this triumph of market forces (ie, said doctor's opportunity to make obscene amounts of money) over silly moral questions like concern for a patient's health and welfare?
Post a Comment