To Hell with Your War on Drugs

 

My father is visiting us here in Schenectady. While my he’s traveling, my mother is staying with my sister in Gettysburg. As some of you may know, my mother has some health problems, and as a result, is on serious pain medications.

Last night, my sister posted the following on Facebook:

Adventures in trying to get my mother’s pain medication (narcotic) refilled while she’s here visiting:

-Six calls to doctors offices-Six calls to the insurance company (two that resulted in having to ask for a supervisor)-Only one call to the insurance company that resulted in my hanging up on someone -Calls to six different pharmacies-Calls to six different urgent care facilities-Surprisingly, only one crying fit-Two calls to nurse navigator-Trips to two different urgent care facilities -Three calls to the pharmacy that finally has the prescription

And do we have it yet? No, because the insurance company screwed something up and refused to fix it in time for us to get it tonight.

Now, there’s no way that even a marginally free market could produce those results. The magic word included above is “narcotic.” My mother’s pain medication is a controlled substance. Controlled by whom? The government, of course.

Why? Well, every time I bring up the War on Drugs here on Ricochet, I’m basically told that we need to control drugs because of the destructive effects of addiction on individuals and families, or the costs to the public purse when people inevitably become addicted to a drug, lose their job, and go on welfare.

So let’s apply that idea here:

In order to protect my mother, a retired nurse, from the potential for addiction and to keep her from destroying her family, or to keep her doing losing her job and going on welfare, she has a hell of a time (and I think “hell” is a fair description here) getting pain medication.

Well, she’s retired, so she doesn’t have a job to lose, her illness does not lend itself to a long lifespan, and it’s the government controls, not the drugs, that’s causing her family stress.

Here’s the thing: While I have no doubt there are some people who pop pain pills recreationally (and let’s be real here, we’re talking about serious narcotics here, my mother has lung cancer), in order to keep those few people from popping pills, we make it so its hard for cancer patients to get pain medicine.

Does that make sense to you? Does it seem fair? Does it seem right?

Here’s the crux of the thing: The problem (one of many) with these kinds of restrictions is that they don’t just keep pills out of the hands of the people who use them recreationally, they also trip up people who have done nothing wrong, and who need them as medicine.

Now, I’ll hear from the nannies (and sorry, but that’s a fair term) who insist that they know what’s better for everyone else, that people popping drugs has negative consequences. Perhaps. But what about the negative consequences for my mother? Why is it difficult for her to get medicine? What did she do wrong to deserve this?

 

Published in Domestic Policy, General, Healthcare
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 92 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Fake John Galt: Claire, the laws involving narcotics have recently changed in the states.

    How recently? Because what I experienced happened in the past five years. But I suspect pharmacies in my grandmother’s neighborhood of DC (near Wisconsin Avenue) and those in Madison Park, Seattle (a very nice, upscale neighborhood) are pretty different places when it comes to filling narcotic painkiller prescriptions.

    • #31
  2. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Fred Cole:Yeah, but if it weren’t a controlled substance, insurance aide, you could just go buy it otc for cash, even if it’s just to get through until the script gets filled and the insurance stuff gets straightened out.

    But that’s not a thing.

    That’s a thing.  I’ve done exactly that.  Now, not with pain meds, but with steroids, which they freak out about nearly as much.

    • #32
  3. Owen Findy Inactive
    Owen Findy
    @OwenFindy

    Pelayo: Some comments are drawing comparisons to gun control. The two are not the same.  Owning a gun does not often lead to an addiction (shooting people) that takes over your life.  Those who do use guns illegally are punished severely if they are caught.

    I think the two are the same in a crucial, fundamental way:  In both cases, the state wrongly restricts the rights of good people to decide how they, without violating anyone’s rights, will maximize chances for a long, happy life.  In both cases, the people pushing the state toward control fear the collective will be worse off when a product is used by certain people.  Each has their pet collective fear.  (Mine has to do with immigration, BTW, but that’s another topic.)

    A couple other points:

    That crimes are committed with guns is not what should make them crimes.  It’s a violation of a right to kill someone, whether one uses a gun or a bat.

    And, addiction doesn’t seem to me an essential point of comparison between the two realms.

    • #33
  4. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Max Ledoux: But I do not see why your mom and dad could not have planned ahead and gotten her prescription filled in their normal pharmacy where, presumably, they don’t have this problem. If it’s an issue of when the supply of pills ran out, they could have planned their trip to not overlap the prescription refill period. Or they could have worked out the refill in advance, by having the doctor call the pharmacy and explain that your mom would be visiting her daughter. They could have called the insurance company in advance. Sorry, but I do not think that we should change drug laws because you’re upset that your mother is sick, and she didn’t plan ahead for a trip.

    Oh, give me a break. Why should a person who is in pain and has a less than adequate number of days to enjoy have to bend over backwards and unnecessarily plan their life around their access to drugs needed for normal functioning?

    Sorry, but I don’t think we should keep the drug laws simply because you think people have a right to force suffering on others in order to protect some fantasy about what a “society” is and can do.

    • #34
  5. Solon JF Inactive
    Solon JF
    @Solon

    Fred Cole:Now, I’ll hear from the nannies (and sorry, but that’s a fair term) who insist that they know what’s better for everyone else, that people popping drugs has negative consequences.

    Cool down mi amigo.  No name-calling on here please.

    • #35
  6. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    All the sturm und drang about Obamacare really doesn’t concern me that much. Sure it’ll bankrupt the country, eviscerate the quality of health care for everyone but the nomenklatura (Barack Obama’s never going to stand in line at a clinic or wait 24 months for a hernia repair), and have all sorts of other bad effects.

    There is only one thing I’m really concerned about, and it’s really independent of Obamacare entirely. If me or my family need heavy duty pain medication, will we be able to get it? The stuff is cheap. Easily made. There’s no economic reason it needs to be in short supply.

    It’s the G.d. war on drugs that limits physician’s prescribing it. They don’t want to have the vultures from the DEA dropping in and interrogating them and digging through patient records.

    The gutless politicians won’t do anything about it. It’s easy to get in a “tough on drugs” bidding war with an opponent. No politician (until maybe very recently in very local areas) ever lost an election by promising to be tougher on drugs.

    It doesn’t bother the soccer moms and dads as long as it’s LeShawn and Yolanda, Jesus and Maria, getting sent to Stateville and Dwight to spend 7-10 years making interesting new friends. But when it’s Ashley and Jourdan facing hard time or zeroing out mommy & daddy’s IRAs for lawyers, then they suddenly take a different view of the matter.

    • #36
  7. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Solon JF:

    Fred Cole:Now, I’ll hear from the nannies (and sorry, but that’s a fair term) who insist that they know what’s better for everyone else, that people popping drugs has negative consequences.

    Cool down mi amigo. No name-calling on here please.

    Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!

    • #37
  8. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Nick Stuart: It doesn’t bother the soccer moms and dads as long as it’s LeShawn and Yolanda, Jesus and Maria, getting sent to Stateville and Dwight to spend 7-10 years making interesting new friends. But when it’s Ashley and Jourdan facing hard time or zeroing out mommy & daddy’s IRAs for lawyers, then they suddenly take a different view of the matter.

    Racists, let lot of them.

    • #38
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    What did she do wrong to deserve this?

    Rules get created for a small percentage of people, those that refuse to follow norms. The less people will follow norms, or the more those norms are destroyed, the more rules you need. Dress codes are a great example. If people could not push the bounds of good tastes, you don’t need them. And yes, the same outfit on different people can be good for one and not another.

    Once we pass a group of around 100-150 people, we get more and more rules, because norms have less power. People that are not the problem get punished because it is easier for the system to apply one rule for everyone the same.

    If everyone could self-govern, then we would not need so many rules. We pay for those that cannot. I see it this way:

    Conservatives tend to think that most people, if left alone, can self-govern is there are good social norms to support them in the culture.

    Libertarians tend to think that almost everyone can self-govern, but even if they cannot, too bad for them.

    Technocrat-Liberals clearly think that only a chosen elite can self-govern.

    Liberals tend to think most people can self-govern if there are the right laws in place to stop them from doing anything too wrong, outside of sexual matters.

    • #39
  10. Pelayo Inactive
    Pelayo
    @Pelayo

    Owen Findy:

    Pelayo: Some comments are drawing comparisons to gun control. The two are not the same. Owning a gun does not often lead to an addiction (shooting people) that takes over your life. Those who do use guns illegally are punished severely if they are caught.

    And, addiction doesn’t seem to me an essential point of comparison between the two realms.

    There are some similarities as you pointed out, but the effects of addiction are a huge key.  Drugs and addiction to drugs leads to behavioral changes in many users.  Surely you are aware of cases of psychological illness triggered by drug use as well as the many cases of drug addicts stealing from loved ones and committing various other crimes in order to fund their drug habits.

    I am not aware of anyone who became mentally ill because of a gun purchase.  I am also unaware of anyone who turned to a life of crime in order to buy ammo for legal gun use.  Therein lies the difference.

    • #40
  11. John Penfold Member
    John Penfold
    @IWalton

    Pelayo

    There will always be people who do dumb self destructive things.  Illegal narcotics cannot be stopped on the supply side, it is impossible.  Our attempt to stop them at the borders acts as a non tariff barrier raising the profits on our side of the border creating  powerful incentives to hook new users, spread the business and increases attempts to penetrate our border.  There are sane ways to legalize them and insane ways,  and there are ways to fight it on the demand side, but keeping the current war on drugs is crazy, a polite word for purposefully corrupt.

    • #41
  12. Owen Findy Inactive
    Owen Findy
    @OwenFindy

    Pelayo: but the effects of addiction are a huge key.  Drugs and addiction to drugs leads to behavioral changes in many users.  Surely you are aware of cases of psychological illness triggered by drug use as well as the many cases of drug addicts stealing from loved ones and committing various other crimes in order to fund their drug habits.

    Fred’s explicit denunciation is, “To Hell with Your War on Drugs”.  If I may make so bold, his accusation behind that denunciation is that the state’s prevention of individuals from choosing which substances to put into their own bodies for which reasons, is illicit (which I agree with).  So, that’s what we’re arguing about.  The reason I think that addiction is beside that very point is that addiction does not violate anyone’s rights, nor does any resultant psychological illness, so it’s none of the state’s business.  Stealing from loved ones (or anyone, for that matter) and various other crimes, are violations of rights independent of whether they are committed to get drug money, and so should be the state’s business.

    • #42
  13. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Your complaint is about regulation, and your mistake is in placing all under the general rubric “war on drugs.” It would be both illogical and dishonest to use an understandably difficult situation – dealing with the regulation of prescription drugs – to argue against the danger of street drugs.

    If your point is that medical regulation is generally unnecessary, burdensome, and harmful to patients, I agree wholeheartedly.  If your argument is for the deregulation/decriminalization of drugs in general, than this is a tired leftist trope, using personal stories to plug unrelated points – never let a tragedy go to waste, as they say.

    If this article is a case of the former, I suggest that you change your title.

    • #43
  14. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Many people aren’t born with the right drugs being pumped into their systems in the right quantities by their own bodies, or they get older or an injury occurs and they are required to ingest curtain drugs to bring them somewhat closer to a normal functioning human.  Most people inexcusably view this as a moral failing. Some people require a constant supply of strong drugs in order to avoid constant torment and since this is “dependency” it supposedly makes them a bad person.

    And so the “protectors” of norms and decency impose draconian rules on people they’ll never meet “for their own good.” It’s all in the name of “good society.” Obviously, you know how to fine tune society. Those other guys who think they can fine tune society in ways you don’t agree with? They are the incompetent nanny staters.

    • #44
  15. Buckeye Inactive
    Buckeye
    @Buckeye

    So — everybody here catches a ride on the “legalize drugs” train, when I think that’s not the real issue.  The train going the other way is the “bureaucracy-government” express.  Some are insurance-company bureaucrats, and some are federal bureaucrats (who, I’m sure, think of themselves as ‘public servants’ but are far from that).

    I would have thought that Ricochetists wouldn’t have missed the real foe. Sensible regulation, managed by sensible people, seems called for.

    Of course, there is the old German proverb, “the head thinks like the hat it wears.”

    • #45
  16. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    Fake John Galt: Claire, the laws involving narcotics have recently changed in the states.

    How recently? Because what I experienced happened in the past five years. But I suspect pharmacies in my grandmother’s neighborhood of DC (near Wisconsin Avenue) and those in Madison Park, Seattle (a very nice, upscale neighborhood) are pretty different places when it comes to filling narcotic painkiller prescriptions.

    These changes have been phased in over the last year.

    I believe you wrote about some of this a while back though you may not know how it connects.  Many areas have seen a large increase in HIV as the changes have pushed some narcotic pill poppers from pills into other options.  The legal changes also outlawed the selling of needles at pharmacies without a prescription.  Since HIV is related to needle sharing and now the new needle users could not purchase needles legally they shared and became infected.  The government answer was to spin up a brand new needle programs for addicts.  So they placed in laws that created the problem, that cost money, and then they created a needle exchange program that costs even more money.  Government at its best.

    And don’t call it unexpected or unintended consequences.  Before the new rules went in I had several doctors tell me exactly about what was going to happen.  So everybody knew it was going to happen and they did it anyway.  Wonder why?  Money?

    • #46
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Buckeye:So — everybody here catches a ride on the “legalize drugs” train, when I think that’s not the real issue. The train going the other way is the “bureaucracy-government” express. Some are insurance-company bureaucrats, and some are federal bureaucrats (who, I’m sure, think of themselves as ‘public servants’ but are far from that).

    I would have thought that Ricochetists wouldn’t have missed the real foe. Sensible regulation, managed by sensible people, seems called for.

    Of course, there is the old German proverb, “the head thinks like the hat it wears.”

    I am not for legalizing drugs. I am sorry if my posts were misleading.

    The trouble with “sensible regulation” is that if all we have are “sensible people” we don’t need it.

    • #47
  18. Sheila S. Inactive
    Sheila S.
    @SheilaS

    I’m so sorry your family is dealing with that. I cannot imagine how frustrated and angry that would make me.

    I have pretty persistent hay fever and Sudafed (not the PE stuff) used to be a regular part of my life. Now I have to: 1) hope I am at the pharmacy when it’s open, 2) hope the pharmacy isn’t too crowded, 3) show ID and sign a form in order to buy a common OTC decongestant. I hardly ever buy it any more and content myself with using decongestant spray, all the while hoping I don’t start experiencing the rebound effects of the spray. I get unreasonably angry at the inconvenience posed to law-abiding persons thanks to the War on Drugs. Just make it a prescription med again and be done with it.

    I cannot think of ANY justification for someone with a real, documented medical need to have that much trouble buying pain medication, regardless of where they are. A couple of faxes/phone calls should be all the verification needed. Are there really that many cancer patients selling their narcotic pain meds? Common sense seems to have left long ago.

    • #48
  19. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Max Ledoux: But I do not see why your mom and dad could not have planned ahead and gotten her prescription filled in their normal pharmacy where, presumably, they don’t have this problem. If it’s an issue of when the supply of pills ran out, they could have planned their trip to not overlap the prescription refill period. Or they could have worked out the refill in advance, by having the doctor call the pharmacy and explain that your mom would be visiting her daughter. They could have called the insurance company in advance. Sorry, but I do not think that we should change drug laws because you’re upset that your mother is sick, and she didn’t plan ahead for a trip.

    Because we should all plan our lives around prescription refills and government bureaucracy.  I  can just see that.  Mom, I am sorry Dad is dying but I can’t come home till Friday because my prescription are due for a refill and some stupid government regulation needs to be followed.

    • #49
  20. Owen Findy Inactive
    Owen Findy
    @OwenFindy

    Buckeye: Of course, there is the old German proverb, “the head thinks like the hat it wears.”

    Nice.  I like it.  Let’s see:  Literal:  Der Kopf denkt so wie den Hut (den) er trägt.

    • #50
  21. Owen Findy Inactive
    Owen Findy
    @OwenFindy

    Buckeye: Sensible regulation, managed by sensible people, seems called for.

    Yeah.  According to an ever-shifting notion (as hats change through the ages) of what’s sensible.

    • #51
  22. AUMom Member
    AUMom
    @AUMom

    Fred, has your mother been able to get her narcotics?

    The whole pain med thing is ridiculous. Even when you plan for refills, every single doctor is loathe to prescribe them because of the new regs. I have had 2 knee replacements since February. I have had to hoard and then ration pain meds to make it through. Finally, I just decided to live with more pain. I imagine we are not far from where we were 100 years ago, more people walk around buzzed with alcohol because they have to do something.

    • #52
  23. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    It’s not a few pill poppers that need addressing.  It’s a problem of epidemic proportions.

    Fix the insurance industry.  Won’t happen.

    Fix tort,  reform won’t ever happen either.

    Fix government laws that prosecute cancer docs for murder.

    Fix laws that pull the licenses from cancer docs.

    Narc legalization will never happen in the US.  We consume 80% of the world’s narc pills and it’s a big money industry.

    I’d prefer legalization with removal of voting and driving rights but that’s me.  I’ve had a couple folks die from narcotic misadventure so I’m by no means unfamiliar with what these poisons do.

    • #53
  24. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    My mom is slowly dying of cancer and she hurts too.  I pay for access to a good doc that takes care of her so she never goes without her mild narcotics.

    Capitalism does work but one needs the cash, not the insurance industry (they can go to heck).

    • #54
  25. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Just to also say that the sedative and painkiller narcotics are a different issue from the PCPs and amphetamines and stimulants (and that is not a thought original to me but rather to Midget Faded Rattlesnake).

    I’d also like to see people on antidepressants in consistent medical care because they can have adverse reactions that can cause them to commit suicide.

    • #55
  26. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Fake John Galt:

    Max Ledoux: But I do not see why your mom and dad could not have planned ahead and gotten her prescription filled in their normal pharmacy where, presumably, they don’t have this problem. If it’s an issue of when the supply of pills ran out, they could have planned their trip to not overlap the prescription refill period. Or they could have worked out the refill in advance, by having the doctor call the pharmacy and explain that your mom would be visiting her daughter. They could have called the insurance company in advance. Sorry, but I do not think that we should change drug laws because you’re upset that your mother is sick, and she didn’t plan ahead for a trip.

    Because we should all plan our lives around prescription refills and government bureaucracy. I can just see that. Mom, I am sorry Dad is dying but I can’t come home till Friday because my prescription are due for a refill and some stupid government regulation needs to be followed.

    I would say, respectfully, that there’s the real world where you have to follow certain rules in order to get your pain medication, and there’s a fantasy world where you don’t.

    • #56
  27. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    As much as I hate to admit it, Max is right. The laws aren’t going to get more liberal and in fact will likely become more restrictive. People on narcotics need to know what the rules are and should do everything possible to find a doctor and pharmacy they can work with. There’s reasons for the restrictions far beyond the government desire to control us.

    For every person on hardcore narcs for serious issues I have another story of an abuser who destroyed his life and his family’s life. One cannot advocate for legalization without understanding the negative consequences as well as the positive ones. Narcotics are a great benefit in some situations and a great evil in others. They’re the worst drug I’ve seen other than meth.

    • #57
  28. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    When people abdicated their medical lives to the insurance industry they made a bargain with the devil. That’s the way it is until we go nationalized health care and then it gets worse. Brave new world is coming.

    • #58
  29. Cat III Member
    Cat III
    @CatIII

    Pelayo:

    There are some similarities as you pointed out, but the effects of addiction are a huge key. Drugs and addiction to drugs leads to behavioral changes in many users. Surely you are aware of cases of psychological illness triggered by drug use as well as the many cases of drug addicts stealing from loved ones and committing various other crimes in order to fund their drug habits.

    I am not aware of anyone who became mentally ill because of a gun purchase. I am also unaware of anyone who turned to a life of crime in order to buy ammo for legal gun use. Therein lies the difference.

    I am unaware of anyone who committed a massacre with pain killers. Funny seeing a conservative claiming that drugs are the cause of addicts bad behavior, not the choices addicts make. Alcoholism leads to anti-social activity as well, but I gather you don’t advocate prohibition. The real difference is you feel citizens are responsible enough to own firearms, but not to use drugs.

    • #59
  30. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Cat III, I’m aware of a woman who left a 2 yr old girl locked in a hot car who would have died if not accidentally discovered. The mom was passed out with needles in her arms from drugs she stole from her husband’s office. That was my ex-wife. Narcotics are insanely destructive. I still favor legalization but sugar coating the disasters they cause does no favor to the movement to get the government out of the regulatory business because there’s not a doc alive who hasn’t seen the problems, some up close and personal. It’s a similar error that gun advocates make when they ignore the nutcases who go on killing sprees. We have to be clear about the issues.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.