I sympathize with the OP, although my concerns are slightly different.
I worry that physician groups are trying to shape this narrative in a way that just shifts government-sanctioned power from one group to another. Physicians are not disinterested parties in this, because they have huge financial benefits to gain from official policy being that drugs are a "medical" issue. Once this happens, if nothing changes about the way that the medical system is organized, you'll just have a different group sucking up money and controlling individuals wholesale without sufficient justification.
I agree with you up until a very critical point. Doctors are better equipped to understand the neurochemical reactions being caused by drugs than criminal justice professionals. However, they are not necessarily better equipped to understand the neurochemical reactions than other scientific professionals, nor are they better equipped to understand the economic, social, or legal consequences than criminal justice and other professionals.
This is what is happening with the medical rhetoric: you have a group of experts in area X, who are currently legally designated as either the only people truly qualified, or in control of those qualified, arguing "drugs are an issue of X." In doing so, they put themselves in control of decision-making in this area, with all the financial benefits that accrue to them, and, more dangerously, simultaneously take control of discourse away from others, because then they become the ones who are only, or who are most qualified to make decisions about whether or not it is an issue of X. Once society deems drug use a "medical disease," then physicians become the people who are only truly legally qualified to make decisions about drug use, and also the only people truly qualified to make decisions about drug use policy. It's an entirely self-serving vicious circle.
This line of reasoning is also dangerous, because there is no end to its logic. Given that humans are fundamentally biological beings, any state of human suffering can ultimately be seen as "medical" in nature.
Reading this sounds conspiratorial, and I don't mean it to be, but it's frustrating to me that society doesn't recognize the ethical conflict of interest created by current medical certification and licensing systems.
Don't get me wrong: the current system for handling drugs is woefully broken. But I worry that labeling drug use as a "disease" will only shift the problems from one area to another, unless that system is also reformed to foster a more competitive, less hierarchical health care community. Drug use problems are a complex, social, biological, psychological, legal, economic problem set that is outside the purview of any particular professional community. The best approach is to just deregulate it, and treat it as a form of human suffering that requires a multifactorial approach.
I'm deeply skeptical this will happen, though, given our recurrent need to oversimplify everything.
I worry that physician groups are trying to shape this narrative in a way that just shifts government-sanctioned power from one group to another. Physicians are not disinterested parties in this, because they have huge financial benefits to gain from official policy being that drugs are a "medical" issue. Once this happens, if nothing changes about the way that the medical system is organized, you'll just have a different group sucking up money and controlling individuals wholesale without sufficient justification.
I agree with you up until a very critical point. Doctors are better equipped to understand the neurochemical reactions being caused by drugs than criminal justice professionals. However, they are not necessarily better equipped to understand the neurochemical reactions than other scientific professionals, nor are they better equipped to understand the economic, social, or legal consequences than criminal justice and other professionals.
This is what is happening with the medical rhetoric: you have a group of experts in area X, who are currently legally designated as either the only people truly qualified, or in control of those qualified, arguing "drugs are an issue of X." In doing so, they put themselves in control of decision-making in this area, with all the financial benefits that accrue to them, and, more dangerously, simultaneously take control of discourse away from others, because then they become the ones who are only, or who are most qualified to make decisions about whether or not it is an issue of X. Once society deems drug use a "medical disease," then physicians become the people who are only truly legally qualified to make decisions about drug use, and also the only people truly qualified to make decisions about drug use policy. It's an entirely self-serving vicious circle.
This line of reasoning is also dangerous, because there is no end to its logic. Given that humans are fundamentally biological beings, any state of human suffering can ultimately be seen as "medical" in nature.
Reading this sounds conspiratorial, and I don't mean it to be, but it's frustrating to me that society doesn't recognize the ethical conflict of interest created by current medical certification and licensing systems.
Don't get me wrong: the current system for handling drugs is woefully broken. But I worry that labeling drug use as a "disease" will only shift the problems from one area to another, unless that system is also reformed to foster a more competitive, less hierarchical health care community. Drug use problems are a complex, social, biological, psychological, legal, economic problem set that is outside the purview of any particular professional community. The best approach is to just deregulate it, and treat it as a form of human suffering that requires a multifactorial approach.
I'm deeply skeptical this will happen, though, given our recurrent need to oversimplify everything.