Why is socialized medicine so costly?
Answer: socialism. And over-regulation.
Why is it illegal for licensed medical practitioners to recommend natural cures?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1189938322350712
Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, during the Constitutional debates in 1787:
“The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. … Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.”
Everyone’s right to contract with others to preserve his/her own health is an unalienable right, a “natural liberty which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience”. (According to Blackstone’s Commentary on the Law. By the way, the Supreme Court considers Blackstone’s Commentary as the received law-of-the-land as it existed when the original states wrote their constitutions.)
The right to self-medicate is as sacred as any other right to self-defense. Everyone is “entitled by the same natural right to security from the corporal insults.” according to Blackstone’s Commentary.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY PRESCRIPTION LAW WHEN AMERICA WAS A FREE COUNTRY.
Government exists to protect rights.
Before the original 13 State Constitutions were written, the ONLY prescription drug law was for slaves. Slaves needed their owner’s permission to take drugs.
When America became a free country, the Constitution abolished the only drug law that existed, even though the slaves were not yet free. Law textbooks said that Slave rights had been “wholly annihilated, or reduced to a shadow” and that the Constitution changed this. (quote is from Tucker’s 1803 Virginia law encyclopedia Book 1, Part 2, Note H “The state of slavery”)
That’s right. Prescription drug laws were too harsh in America, even for slaves.
If you are denied the right to take care of yourself, or require permission from your owner to buy life-saving meds, then perhaps your rights have also been “wholly annihilated, or reduced to a shadow”. If you think that there is a law that restricts drug purchasing, then you are worse off than a slave. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.
Summary, so far. Prior to the Constitution, drug prescription laws applied only to slaves. After the United States became a nation, the drug laws had to be removed so that the slaves would have a right to take care of themselves. Prescription drug laws, being unconstitutional, were too cruel to the slaves.
The sacred cow of modern medicine
Prescription laws are consumer protection laws to prohibit corrupt pharmacists from diluting the pure drugs with uncontrolled substances.
A rule of statute construction (especially if there is no legislated “express words of nullity” to prove that a law changed the original intent): Verba debent intelligi cum effectu ut res magis valeat quam pereat Words ought to be understood with effect, that a thing may rather be preserved than destroyed.
The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 required truthful labels and prohibited tampering with drugs before the pharmacists received them. (and this was back in the days where Coca-Cola contained cocaine – when we were a free country).
The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 enacted prescription drug laws to ensure the purity of high-quality pharmaceuticals for those who could afford the pure drugs. I have no objection to pure pharmaceuticals being made available to those who can afford the higher quality. This seems like a perfectly acceptable law.
Prior to 1938 all drugs were available without a prescription. Everyone could self-medicate. From 1938 to 1951 manufacturers of drugs made the determination to require a doctor’s prescription. Fears of lawsuits over side effects were the driving factor in their decisions. No one was denied the right to fight their own diseases, provided that doctors kept them informed of the dangers. If you wanted to damage yourself with full awareness of the likely consequences, then no jury was going to compensate you for your injury.
The Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951 set the stage for FDA oversight of [ perfectly legitimate ] prescription drug laws. A seemingly acceptable governmental function.
As you can see, none of the written laws destroyed the “natural liberty which is not required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience”.
Then States started closing the back door to pharmacies, thereby denying a necessity of life. It was only the enforcement efforts — the misconstruing of legitimate laws — that blocked your right to self medicate.
RIGHT TO SELF MEDICATE
Notice that drug laws are not codified with other criminal laws. There is a reason for this.
This is where you have to do some homework. Your state will have a law that allows exceptions to the drug law. In my state, the law allows possession without intent to deliver: (c) “The following persons … may possess controlled substances … (3) an ultimate user or …”
In 2003 too many people were being released from jail by using the ultimate user defense. So the legislature passed the new law supposedly to clarify the existing law — but used words to make it more confusing. It now allows ultimate user possession of controlled substance if by prescription “or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.”
Lawyers will try to tell you that there is no constitutional right to defend your health and that the law changed in 2003 to eliminate the ultimate user defense. But the legislature stated clearly in the Act that the law revision “is not intended that this act effectuate any substantive change to any criminal provision…”
Apparently Congress was cautious enough to preserve your rights with this loophole. And judges, at least prior to 2003, also recognized your rights. The problem seems to be with law enforcement and prosecutors who do not obey the law.