They used cannabis to manage their pain for two days and never filled the script. I think a script for two or even three days would have been perfectly reasonable with a "Call me back if the pain is too much after that period".
I'd go further and say that all "drugs" should be easily available and the tiny percentage of folks who develop dependency issues should be provided treatment and support.
Not only would this reduce suffering and provide a wider range of pain management strategies, it would also significantly reduce the societal costs of substance prohibitions in terms of reduced economic impact in the following (not a complete list) ways:
1. Interdiction/enforcement is hugely expensive, and providing treatment to those who require it would cost a fraction of that;
2. Criminalization of substance use stigmatizes those who are caught in that particular net and, at least in the US, limits their ability (because many folks won't hire you if you have a criminal conviction) to increase economic activity/output;
3. Because of (2), many communities as well as the economy as a whole are negatively impacted both economically and socially;
For some reason, when it comes to "substance" use issues, we tend to examine the possible alternatives to address them, then choose the least effective, most harmful one.
I hope that changes, but I doubt I'll live to see it.
Edit: Clarified that the impacts I mention are not all of the impacts that drug prohibition has on society.
In the same vein, I think a lot of research ought to be done into non-addictive painkillers. Then the risk would basically be zero and everybody's happy (except for pharma companies that make bank off of opioid addicts, of course)
Many, many people assume that if the doctor doesn't offer pain medicine, then it's because they don't need it. Once you've left the office and the pain gets bad and you realize you should have asked for them, it's too late. But also, a ton of doctors won't prescribe them anymore ever because of the extreme risk of losing their career to the DEA if they make a bad call in favor of prescribing. There's virtually zero risk for under prescribing, so human nature for self-preservation makes this decision a no-brainer for the doctor.
> In the same vein, I think a lot of research ought to be done into non-addictive painkillers. Then the risk would basically be zero and everybody's happy (except for pharma companies that make bank off of opioid addicts, of course)
I agree completely
In my opinion, giving somebody pills who doesn't need them (what used to be the norm) isn't great but the vast majority of people don't suddenly become junkies. Most people are perfectly fine. You yourself is evidence of this.
But not giving somebody pills who does need them (which is now the norm) is literal torture, and the practice disgusts me. I'm really glad you were fine, but not everybody is so lucky, and the number of people who say as you do but also have the power to enforce their views on everyone else have literally been responsible for torturing others. The only thing worse than sitting in pain and misery is knowing that the means to relieve some of that pain is readily available, but some person decided you shouldn't have them so you get to suffer.