What personality should a female surgeon possess?

[Mad Jack]

You're right bc there are so many preventative medicine docs out there. And I'm sure every primary care physician believes as you do.
I don't see what one's specialty has to do with this. If I was a pediatrician it would be different?

Anyone who is in preventative medicine or epidemiology will tell you it is a no-brainer if you want to prevent the spread of HIV to the general population over time. When you ignore a disease problem in one group that is connected to the rest of the community, it eventually filters out to everyone else. Doing everything you can to prevent disease at a lower level keeps you from having to fight it when it goes full blown epidemic in the general population.

Ebola in Africa is a great example of this. We could've sent over some supplies and physicians early on and killed this thing in its tracks. Instead, we've got a smoldering epidemic with no end in sight. If ebola hits Mexico, we're probably going to be dealing with sporadic ebola outbreaks in North America for months or even years. It's basic gorram epidemiology. And your specialty has everything to do with it because you don't give a damn about these issues since you don't deal with them, unlike a guy in public health or someone working FP in the inner city. You let HIV get out of control though, and it could very well be your problem, or that of someone in your family, because those people shooting up aren't just locked in some isolated city block where nothing but junkies is allowed and no one leaves.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

Again, I am referring to stopping the actual drug addiction not the future STD that a drug addict will contract, due to his habit of sharing needles. I don't want to aid and abet someone's addiction, when that money could be used toward the funding of schools. Sorry, not sorry.

So you'd rather pay for treatment programs? Because I'm all about that, but treatment is expensive, long-term, and you have to be willing to undergo it for it to work. For those that are not ready to seek treatment, needle exchange programs are the best tool we have to help them (and the community) from a health perspective.

 

[Winged Scapula]

The AMA also has said obesity is a "disease", the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out to talk about same-sex marriage (even though it had no business coming out on a political issue), and many people have advocated that getting a sex change should be covered by medical insurance. A specialty society putting out a press release doesn't always consider putting medical science over political correctness when doing so.

Since I'm not an Addiction Psychiatrist or other mental health worker specializing in that field (or is anyone else here), I don't think we can assume that the professional society doesn't speak for its members in the way the AMA doesn't until we are told otherwise. You implied that Addiction Psychiatry doesn't support NEP and I merely provided some evidence that at least a large number of professionals in the field do.

I have no dog in this fight (nor an opinion about it either).

 

[DermViser]

Member funded professional organizations should not "talk about" health or health care-related issues that affect their members even if they are "political"? Why not? Does that mean the anesthesiologists' organizations should not "talk about" CRNA practice laws, a clearly political issue?

Inserting oneself into a political issue/debate on gay marriage, is inappropriate for a medical specialty society like the American Academy of Pediatrics. I realize you feel differently, but since you also believe that all illegal immigrants healthcare should be paid for by society, and likely believe in single payer healthcare, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[DermViser]

So you'd rather pay for treatment programs? Because I'm all about that, but treatment is expensive, long-term, and you have to be willing to undergo it for it to work. For those that are not ready to seek treatment, needle exchange programs are the best tool we have to help them (and the community) from a health perspective.

I would much rather pay for comprehensive treatment programs that actually get at the heart of the problem. Much better than the claptrap that it's better I spend money on it now bc I'll save money later (might be true, but still not solving the actual problem), or that these programs are oh so cheap, so no biggie.

 

[touchpause13]

Inserting oneself into a political issue/debate on gay marriage, is inappropriate for a medical specialty society like the American Academy of Pediatrics. I realize you feel differently, but since you also believe that all illegal immigrants healthcare should be paid for by society, and likely believe in single payer healthcare, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Seeing as there were a great many people who were claiming that gay people couldn't raise healthy kids, yeah I think it's totally reasonable for the American Academy of Pediatrics to step in and give their opinion

 

[DermViser]

Anyone who is in preventative medicine or epidemiology will tell you it is a no-brainer if you want to prevent the spread of HIV to the general population over time. When you ignore a disease problem in one group that is connected to the rest of the community, it eventually filters out to everyone else. Doing everything you can to prevent disease at a lower level keeps you from having to fight it when it goes full blown epidemic in the general population.

Ebola in Africa is a great example of this. We could've sent over some supplies and physicians early on and killed this thing in its tracks. Instead, we've got a smoldering epidemic with no end in sight. If ebola hits Mexico, we're probably going to be dealing with sporadic ebola outbreaks in North America for months or even years. It's basic gorram epidemiology. And your specialty has everything to do with it because you don't give a damn about these issues since you don't deal with them, unlike a guy in public health or someone working FP in the inner city. You let HIV get out of control though, and it could very well be your problem, or that of someone in your family, because those people shooting up aren't just locked in some isolated city block where nothing but junkies is allowed and no one leaves.

Right, bc every single FP works in the inner city.

 

[Mad Jack]

Right, bc every single FP works in the inner city.

I'm not saying every FP does. But you're a lot more likely to be dealing with patients with addiction (basically infinitely moreso) working as a FP than a dermatologist. You aren't connected to the problem directly, so your opinion is going to be much different than someone who has to deal with the policies you believe will be so effective (let them get HIV, whatevs!). And, as I said, treatment only works if you're willing to undergo it, and even then, relapse rates are massive. So I'd be more than happy to have addiction treatment available, but needle exchange programs are still a necessity because there will always, and I mean ALWAYS, be people abusing drugs.

 

[DermViser]

Seeing as there were a great many people who were claiming that gay people couldn't raise healthy kids, yeah I think it's totally reasonable for the American Academy of Pediatrics to step in and give their opinion

I could be wrong, but the AAP was not asked for their opinion. It is well known that special interest groups can be pressured to change their stances on medical issues due to non-medical reasons. What next? Should the AAP get involved in illegal immigration as well?

Part of the respect given to medical specialty societies is they're supposed to give their credentialed, educated opinion when solicited on issues of concern to the public free of politics. If not, you end up like the AMA which is just seen as a vested special interest group.

 

[DermViser]

I'm not saying every FP does. But you're a lot more likely to be dealing with patients with addiction (basically infinitely moreso) working as a FP than a dermatologist. You aren't connected to the problem directly, so your opinion is going to be much different than someone who has to deal with the policies you believe will be so effective (let them get HIV, whatevs!). And, as I said, treatment only works if you're willing to undergo it, and even then, relapse rates are massive. So I'd be more than happy to have addiction treatment available, but needle exchange programs are still a necessity because there will always, and I mean ALWAYS, be people abusing drugs.

There's a difference between treating it in patients, and believing that your tax payer dollars should go towards it. Your program of needle exchange has no accountability whatsoever on the part of the drug addict. NONE. The taxpayer has the RIGHT to demand whether his/her taxpayer dollars are achieving a specific goal of lowering drug abuse, regardless of whether you "feel" it's ok if it doesn't, bc it's the right thing to do.

 

[DermViser]

Seeing as there were a great many people who were claiming that gay people couldn't raise healthy kids, yeah I think it's totally reasonable for the American Academy of Pediatrics to step in and give their opinion

Well I don't think we have any double-blind, randomized control study to actually prove it.

 

[touchpause13]

Well I don't think we have any double-blind, randomized control study to actually prove it.

"To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract

"The body of literature generally concludes that children with lesbian and gay parents are developing psychologically, intellectually, behaviorally, and emotionally in positive directions, and that the sexual orientation of parents is not an effective or important predictor of successful child development."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J002v29n01_05#.VERJPRbiOf4

"Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract

 

[DermViser]

"To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract

"The body of literature generally concludes that children with lesbian and gay parents are developing psychologically, intellectually, behaviorally, and emotionally in positive directions, and that the sexual orientation of parents is not an effective or important predictor of successful child development."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J002v29n01_05#.VERJPRbiOf4

"Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract

Again, were those double-blind, randomized control, prospective studies? Or are you just listing publications for the sake of it?

 

[Mad Jack]

There's a difference between treating it in patients, and believing that your tax payer dollars should go towards it. Your program of needle exchange has no accountability whatsoever on the part of the drug addict. NONE. The taxpayer has the RIGHT to demand whether his/her taxpayer dollars are achieving a specific goal of lowering drug abuse, regardless of whether you "feel" it's ok if it doesn't, bc it's the right thing to do.

Taxpayers can vote in people that they want to abolish these programs if they feel that way. But they won't, and here's why.

For those of us that actually think logically about the issue, rather than approaching it from a high moral horse, some things are clear. The programs are cheap- dirt cheap, in fact, to the point that you will likely never even pay a full dime toward them in your entire working lifetime. They're effective- they save lives, reduce HIV rates in users, and protect the community at large by keeping HIV rates low. Lastly, they save money. Buckets of it. If my state cut their HIV infection rates, even by 10%, they would save over 11 million taxpayer dollars. If they cut them by 33%, we'd save damn near 35 million dollars. The needle exchange programs themselves cost a fraction of this- they run out of existing facilities for other drug treatment programs, so they have zero cost for facilities and staff, and the needles cost damn near nothing.

If you want to piss away tens of millions of dollars on principle and let people die because of some misguided sense of "personal responsibility" (a phrase that has little meaning in the context of physiological addiction, something you clearly either neglect or do not understand), good for you. The rest of us will be over here doing the practical thing that makes sense.

 

[DermViser]

"To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract

"The body of literature generally concludes that children with lesbian and gay parents are developing psychologically, intellectually, behaviorally, and emotionally in positive directions, and that the sexual orientation of parents is not an effective or important predictor of successful child development."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J002v29n01_05#.VERJPRbiOf4

"Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children. The same holds for children raised by gay men, but more studies should be done."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract

"The Scandinavian Psychological Association" - lol.

 

[PL198]

alright you guys go ahead and be accomplices in federal crime. I don't support that, so I won't. I don't care if you think drug use is ok or not. the fact is, it's a federal crime and you're propagating that by giving them needles. I don't care if they still would use anyway, you are providing them an asset used to commit a crime, ie you are an accomplice.

 

[DermViser]

Taxpayers can vote in people that they want to abolish these programs if they feel that way. But they won't, and here's why.

For those of us that actually think logically about the issue, rather than approaching it from a high moral horse, some things are clear. The programs are cheap- dirt cheap, in fact, to the point that you will likely never even pay a full dime toward them in your entire working lifetime. They're effective- they save lives, reduce HIV rates in users, and protect the community at large by keeping HIV rates low. Lastly, they save money. Buckets of it. If my state cut their HIV infection rates, even by 10%, they would save over 11 million taxpayer dollars. If they cut them by 33%, we'd save damn near 35 million dollars. The needle exchange programs themselves cost a fraction of this- they run out of existing facilities for other drug treatment programs, so they have zero cost for facilities and staff, and the needles cost damn near nothing.

If you want to piss away tens of millions of dollars on principle and let people die because of some misguided sense of "personal responsibility" (a phrase that has little meaning in the context of physiological addiction, something you clearly either neglect or do not understand), good for you. The rest of us will be over here doing the practical thing that makes sense.

You can call it approaching it from a "high moral horse" or "ivory tower syndrome" or whatever. But in your entire screed you didn't list once about it actually LOWERING drug abuse rates or getting people to actively stop. Politicians are free to campaign OPENLY to the public about wanting to give clean needles to drug addicts and see if it works in their poll numbers. But they won't.

 

[DermViser]

alright you guys go ahead and be accomplices in federal crime. I don't support that, so I won't. I don't care if you think drug use is ok or not. the fact is, it's a federal crime and you're propagating that by giving them needles. I don't care if they still would use anyway, you are providing them an asset used to commit a crime, ie you are an accomplice.

They're liberals so they're quite ok with that. It makes up their voting base.

 

[Mad Jack]

Again, were those double-blind, randomized control, prospective studies? Or are you just listing publications for the sake of it?

We get it. You're a conservative that doesn't give a damn about the gays or the druggies or anyone with any personality flaws or traits that would make them an outcast in 1960s suburbia. You need scientific evidence and double-blind studies for everything but your own opinion, it seems, and even if they're provided, you'll probably scramble to find some flaw in their methodology.

You damn well know it's near impossible to do a double-blind study on the development of kids from straight and gay parents. At some point they're going to mention their two dads or how their two moms affect their life and your whole blind study is blown unless you hire a new researcher every time the kids dare say a word about their parents.

 

[PL198]

We get it. You're a conservative that doesn't give a damn about the gays or the druggies or anyone with any personality flaws or traits that would make them an outcast in 1960s suburbia. You need scientific evidence and double-blind studies for everything but your own opinion, it seems, and even if they're provided, you'll probably scramble to find some flaw in their methodology.

You damn well know it's near impossible to do a double-blind study on the development of kids from straight and gay parents. At some point they're going to mention their two dads or how their two moms affect their life and your whole blind study is blown unless you hire a new researcher every time the kids dare say a word about their parents.

Why does it mean we don't care if we don't want to assist in their crime? I wish them the best, just like I wish anyone else. If anything, I feel that you are the one being negative towards them. You're making a special condition where you will commit a crime, because of their status. I don't look down on anyone because of their status and act consistently towards them regardless of it. You can't say the same about your view.

 

[touchpause13]

We get it. You're a conservative that doesn't give a damn about the gays or the druggies or anyone with any personality flaws or traits that would make them an outcast in 1960s suburbia. You need scientific evidence and double-blind studies for everything but your own opinion, it seems, and even if they're provided, you'll probably scramble to find some flaw in their methodology.

You damn well know it's near impossible to do a double-blind study on the development of kids from straight and gay parents. At some point they're going to mention their two dads or how their two moms affect their life and your whole blind study is blown unless you hire a new researcher every time the kids dare say a word about their parents.

I was about to say what would that even look like? These are psych studies.

 

[touchpause13]

Why does it mean we don't care if we don't want to assist in their crime? I wish them the best, just like I wish anyone else. If anything, I feel that you are the one being negative towards them. You're making a special condition where you will commit a crime, because of their status. I don't look down on anyone because of their status and act consistently towards them regardless of it. You can't say the same about your view.

On what planet is giving a drug user a clean needle a crime?

 

[PL198]

On what planet is giving a drug user a clean needle a crime?

Do they not use the needle to commit a crime? You give that to them, by definition you are an accomplice.

 

[DermViser]

We get it. You're a conservative that doesn't give a damn about the gays or the druggies or anyone with any personality flaws or traits that would make them an outcast in 1960s suburbia. You need scientific evidence and double-blind studies for everything but your own opinion, it seems, and even if they're provided, you'll probably scramble to find some flaw in their methodology.

You damn well know it's near impossible to do a double-blind study on the development of kids from straight and gay parents. At some point they're going to mention their two dads or how their two moms affect their life and your whole blind study is blown unless you hire a new researcher every time the kids dare say a word about their parents.

No, you're completely wrong, but I am not shocked you went straight for the ad hominem.

It has nothing to do with that. Studies have a lot of confounders -- one of them being socioeconomic status which plays a much much greater role. Unlike yourself, I prefer to use science, evidence, etc. in reaching conclusions, not just bc it is politically expedient. I'm sorry you feel differently or feel it's a bother.

 

[DermViser]

Do they not use the needle to commit a crime? You give that to them, by definition you are an accomplice.

She doesn't believe drugs should be illegal.

 

[Mad Jack]

Why does it mean we don't care if we don't want to assist in their crime? I wish them the best, just like I wish anyone else. If anything, I feel that you are the one being negative towards them. You're making a special condition where you will commit a crime, because of their status. I don't look down on anyone because of their status and act consistently towards them regardless of it. You can't say the same about your view.

Drug use is not a crime. Drug possession. So no, you are not aiding in the commission of a crime, something you'd know if you actually had any grasp on drug policy and its history.

 

[touchpause13]

Drug use is not a crime. Drug possession. So no, you are not aiding in the commission of a crime, something you'd know if you actually had any grasp on drug policy and its history.

What he said.

I never said that I think drugs should be legal across the board. Drug abuse is way more complex than just legal/illegal IMO

 

[PL198]

She doesn't believe drugs should be illegal.

That's fine and I see the positives of that for some substances, but that doesn't matter in this discussion. It isn't our job to shape policy. I don't get to act a certain way because I disagree with a law.

Drug use is not a crime. Drug possession. So no, you are not aiding in the commission of a crime, something you'd know if you actually had any grasp on drug policy and its history.

wrong. want me to quote the DEA?

 

[Mad Jack]

No, you're completely wrong, but I am not shocked you went straight for the ad hominem.

It has nothing to do with that. Studies have a lot of confounders -- one of them being socioeconomic status which plays a much much greater role. Unlike yourself, I prefer to use science, evidence, etc. in reaching conclusions, not just bc it is politically expedient. I'm sorry you feel differently or feel it's a bother.

You're perfectly content to leave current institutions standing with no scientific study. You aren't clamoring for double-blind studies about marriage versus cohabitation to prove marriage should be a federally supported institution that is subsidized by taxpayers, for instance. So stop hiding behind your science banner already and admit it's just how you feel and until you get a study you know is impossible to fund or methodologically conduct, you'll never change your mind. So basically, you're using science to defend why you'll never budge on the issue because you know it is a question science cant answer.

I also love how you completely ignore the science if you disagree with it. There are piles of studies showing needle exchange programs work, zero I can find saying they don't. But in this case you say screw the science, this is about opinion and personal responsibility.

 

[DermViser]

Drug use is not a crime. Drug possession. So no, you are not aiding in the commission of a crime, something you'd know if you actually had any grasp on drug policy and its history.

You're right. They're just holding drugs for safekeeping.

 

[DermViser]

That's fine and I see the positives of that for some substances, but that doesn't matter in this discussion. It isn't our job to shape policy. I don't get to act a certain way because I disagree with a law.

I know. I'm just telling you where she's coming from. Hard to have a reasonable, rational discussion with somone when that person doesn't think those drugs should be illegal to begin with.

 

[PL198]

drug use is by itself directly a crime. this is fact. not debatable.

 

[DermViser]

You're perfectly content to leave current institutions standing with no scientific study. You aren't clamoring for double-blind studies about marriage versus cohabitation to prove marriage should be a federally supported institution that is subsidized by taxpayers, for instance.

I'm not building policy on it either. What's your point?

 

[DermViser]

drug use is by itself directly a crime. this is fact. not debatable.

They're going thru contortions to excuse drug use. Give them a moment to get untwisted.

 

[Doudline]

Do they not use the needle to commit a crime? You give that to them, by definition you are an accomplice.

Sure.

By definition, then, any help whatsoever given to an ex or potential criminal makes you an accomplice.
Do you suggest people who ODed, ruptured their rectum while practicing sodomy, attempted suicide with an unregistered gun, etc, should not receive medical care under any circumstance? Will YOU refuse them care?

Your logic is senseless, and obviously based in bad faith.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm not building policy on it either. What's your point?

Go back and reread the edited post and you'll understand my point is that you're a hypocrite hiding your opinions by using science, but only when it is convenient to do so.

 

[PL198]

Sure.

By definition, then, any help whatsoever given to an ex or potential criminal makes you an accomplice.
Do you suggest people who ODed, ruptured their rectum while practicing sodomy, attempted suicide with an unregistered gun, etc, should not receive medical care under any circumstance? Will YOU refuse them care?

Your logic is senseless, and obviously based in bad faith.

no. you're misrepresenting intent. when I prescribe X pill for patient, it's with the intent that they will take it at my recommended dosages. it's not my fault if they take the whole bottle in one sitting and something happens to them. When you give them a needle, your intent is to allow them to use it in their illegal drug usage. you are commiting a crime. don't make me bring law2doc in here.

 

[PL198]

Go back and reread the edited post and you'll understand my point is that you're a hypocrite hiding your opinions by using science, but only when it is convenient to do so.

show me legal code where drug use isn't a crime. it is. you're just pulling stuff out of your butt to look good in a debate. you're wrong, its ok. I've been and will be wrong many times

 

[Mad Jack]

That's fine and I see the positives of that for some substances, but that doesn't matter in this discussion. It isn't our job to shape policy. I don't get to act a certain way because I disagree with a law.


wrong. want me to quote the DEA?

Let me see the charge that would be levied that you are in violation of being an accomplice to. All charges in relation to drugs at the federal level involve trafficking, possession, and sale, not use. You didn't sell, smuggle, or obtain their drugs so you're in the clear.

 

[DermViser]

Go back and reread the edited post and you'll understand my point is that you're a hypocrite hiding your opinions by using science, but only when it is convenient to do so.

Yes, a complete rambling non sequitur. There are not "piles of studies showing needle exchange programs work" in terms of lower drug abuse or stopping people those who are already doing IV drugs to stop. Of course that was never your endpoint. Congrats, you stopped an IV drug addict from getting HIV bc you took away his unsterile equipment to shoot up with a sterile one. You're a great accomplice.

 

[DermViser]

Sure.

By definition, then, any help whatsoever given to an ex or potential criminal makes you an accomplice.
Do you suggest people who ODed, ruptured their rectum while practicing sodomy, attempted suicide with an unregistered gun, etc, should not receive medical care under any circumstance? Will YOU refuse them care?

Your logic is senseless, and obviously based in bad faith.

Uh, that is not at all what @PL198 said. Those examples are not even analogous. Try again.

 

[PL198]

Let me see the charge that would be levied that you are in violation of being an accomplice to. All charges in relation to drugs at the federal level involve trafficking, possession, and sale, not use. You didn't sell, smuggle, or obtain their drugs so you're in the clear.

drug possession. you do realize your body is a container and you are responsible for what is in it right? if I have drugs up my anal canal, that's a federal offense. it's no different than if they're in my blood. there's no epithelial penetration exception clause in US Code 84X series. I don't see anything that says " ZOMG THEY'RE UNDER THE SQUAMOUS LAYERS, NO CRIME NO CRIME."

With that I'm out.

 

[Mad Jack]

show me legal code where drug use isn't a crime. it is. you're just pulling stuff out of your butt to look good in a debate. you're wrong, its ok. I've been and will be wrong many times

Look it up, I'm on a damn smartphone and headed out for a 3 hour drive. You clearly don't know **** about federal drug laws. TP, you mind dropping the list of federal drug crimes for these guys?

Manufacture, sale, possession, and trafficking are it. You never get charged with "getting high on heroin" lol. I grew up in a community where drugs were freakin' everywhere, I know what my friends and classmates were going away for and for how long lol.

 

[Mad Jack]

drug possession. you do realize your body is a container and you are responsible for what is in it right? if I have drugs up my anal canal, that's a federal offense. it's no different than if they're in my blood. there's no epithelial penetration exception clause in US Code 84X series. I don't see anything that says " ZOMG THEY'RE UNDER THE SQUAMOUS LAYERS, NO CRIME NO CRIME."

With that I'm out.

Possession requires a quantity or it isn't a chargeable offense. That's why you don't get charged if you're apprehended high but have zero drugs on you, and why getting high, in and of itself, is not a crime.

 

[PL198]

Possession requires a quantity or it isn't a chargeable offense. That's why you don't get charged if you're apprehended high but have zero drugs on you, and why getting high, in and of itself, is not a crime.

Wrong again. whatever you want to bs about laws to somehow make your point correct. it's possession and possession of paraphernalia regarding the needles. done wasting my time, enjoy your internet champion of the people status.

 

[Mad Jack]

Wrong again. whatever you want to bs about laws to somehow make your point correct. it's possession and possession of paraphernalia regarding the needles. done wasting my time, enjoy your internet champion of the people status.

Dear god, tomorrow I'll dig up the entire penal code and post it in this thread. A quick Google search on your part could confirm what I'm saying is true, but you'd rather use the strategy of "I'm too lazy to look so I'm right" strategy. An officer can literally see you do drugs and if they don't get you to cough it up and have no way to quantify it, the best they can charge you with is obstruction of justice and interfering with an investigation. Paraphernalia charges are state charges, not federal, so if you are in a state that doesn't have paraphernalia laws, again, you're good.

 

[touchpause13]

I'm not finding any laws that say you can be charged just for possessing drugs in your system. If you in public and acting crazy that's one thing, same with driving. but just being high? I'm not seeing anything

 

[oldbearprofessor]

What next? Should the AAP get involved in illegal immigration as well?

Part of the respect given to medical specialty societies is they're supposed to give their credentialed, educated opinion when solicited on issues of concern to the public free of politics.

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/federal-advocacy/Pages/ImmigrationReform.aspx

As a private, member financed society, AAP members, not you or any individual who is not a member of that society, get to decide what they will give an opinion about. They make those decisions at an annual leadership meeting each year with direct member input and voting, as well as other society group meetings which provide that type of input.

 

[DermViser]

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/federal-advocacy/Pages/ImmigrationReform.aspx

As a private, member financed society, AAP members, not you or any individual who is not a member of that society, get to decide what they will give an opinion about. They make those decisions at an annual leadership meeting each year with direct member input and voting, as well as other society groups.

And it's no surprise at all then, why medical specialty societies like the AAP have no clout on Capitol Hill. Of course, when you're the front group to enroll people for Obamacare as HHS Secretary Sebelius commanded you to: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=667&sclient=psy-ab&q=sebelius and pediatricians&oq=sebelius and pediatricians&gs_l=serp.3...3743429.3749876.4.3750153.42.31.7.0.0.1.600.7221.0j17j7j4j2j1.31.0....0...1c.1.56.serp..52.74.11836.0.lxFgdmKyDHU&psj=1&cad=cbv&sei=2VVEVJHzMdeBygSdsICQCQ#q=sebelius and pediatricians, then you lose all credibility with the public.

 

[RJGOP]

What if drugs were made legal, would you guys have the same opinion?

No. I would be more concerned with the fact that they are legal. But like DermViser put it, there illegal for a reason. Although Colorado and Washington are trying to infringe on that restriction.

I would worry more about how so many people would abuse the legality of drugs.