It’s fun to watch you flail around, so thanks for another entertaining bombastic response. I can explain it to you, but it takes a person with at least some mental faculties to grasp what I am explaining to you.
You may wish to continue to dismiss it as you have, but controled substances are prescribed with a lot more factors involved, than a simple prescription medication.
Physicians have to jump through hoops, involving their compliance and physical records keeping. There is oversight. It’s different.
Your response to my mentioning this to you, is to reference it as my ‘just saying so’.
How old are you, 12?
Physicians do have a different mindset when it comes to narcotics. Making a comparison of their willingness to prescribe either, just doesn’t make sense.
Yes, if a person takes a barrel full of an OTC item, it will cause harm. And this was one of your benchmarks for why a physician shouldn’t see any difference between prescribing Class II meds or an antibiotic. It’s just laughable. Dismiss it as my just saying so, but you’re the one coming off looking like a nut-job who won’t stick to logic and reason.
I have also mentioned that pediatricians are not the major prescribers of narcotics. This flew right over your head despite the discussion being related to pediatric related antibiotics, and another poster trying to equate physicians being able to refuse narcotics, but not refuse antibiotics. And for this to have relevancy, it gains merit if were talking about the same physician. We’re not.
On a number of levels, this example failed the test.
Not the same type of med
Not the same level of lethality
Not the same prescribing physician base
Not the same regulatory impact
These are valid points, that you have sought to reduce to the idea I was more or less claiming it was true without reason, just because I said so.
FAIL.
Duh. That's why they're called "controlled". The doctor's behaviour is more a product of the controls than the actual properties of the drugs.