Talk about politics (esp. libertarianism) during interview?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

sotto voce

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
242
Reaction score
0
Do interviewers ever discuss politics with you? I lean left on some issues but right on others. I am also a softcore libertarian. For example, I don't think the FDA should be defunded and disbanded, as a true libertarian would. But, I do think all drugs, including prescription medications, should be legal. Marijuana, heroin, meth, cocaine, Vicodin, Percocet, you name it. I'm not sure how this would sit with the interviewers, who tend to be somewhat liberal secular humanists, from what I've heard. Thoughts?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Do interviewers ever discuss politics with you? I lean left on some issues but right on others. I am also a softcore libertarian. For example, I don't think the FDA should be defunded and disbanded, as a true libertarian would. But, I do think all drugs, including prescription medications, should be legal. Marijuana, heroin, meth, cocaine, Vicodin, Percocet, you name it. I'm not sure how this would sit with the interviewers, who tend to be somewhat liberal secular humanists, from what I've heard. Thoughts?

Just do your best not to mention those things.

As a poor example, did mentioning he wanted to end the war on drugs help Paul's campaign? Not really, but it sure did hurt it (seemingly).

And before you bash me for being either a crazy liberal or a crazy conservative who hates Ron Paul, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
 
Just do your best not to mention those things.

As a poor example, did mentioning he wanted to end the war on drugs help Paul's campaign? Not really, but it sure did hurt it (seemingly).

And before you bash me for being either a crazy liberal or a crazy conservative who hates Ron Paul, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Lol, good point. Paul actually was too hardcore for me.

I just don't see why imbibing massive quantities of alcohol is perfectly legal, but smoking a minute quantity of marijuana is legal. Btw I've never smoked tobacco or marijuana, but the point holds. The same goes for meth. Who is the government to tell me what I can put in my body? Actually, a great example of how we should address these substances is trans fat. Trans fact is bad for us, yet it is still legal and found in many products. That's a great example where minimal governmental involvement (requiring trans fat content in the Nutrition Facts and informing the public about the dangers of trans fat) and increased personal accountability combined perfectly. No "nanny state" required.

I also think that it should be legal for anyone to perform medical procedures, so long as the patient consents and is not misled in any way. For example, I should be able to have my accountant remove my appendix, if he holds himself out as an accountant and nothing more and if I legally consent to the operation. But I probably won't mention that, either. :)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I wouldn't bring it up. I went to 10 interviews, with the number of individual interviews at each interview day ranging from 1-10, so I had a lot. That being said, only two of my interviewers even mentioned politics. One really wanted to go at it, so I dodged a little bit until I figured out his position, and then mirrored it (result: accepted). Another interviewer asked me, "So, what do you think about politics?" to which I responded, "Well, I can't say I'm a fan of politics." Then we both chuckled a bit, and it wasn't mentioned again. If the interviewer brings it up, just be careful and smart about your answers. Don't step on any toes.
 
I'm not sure when this would even come up in an interview. If you're asked a question about healthcare reform, don't use it as a platform to expand upon your political views. It's fine to speak your opinion, but don't take the opportunity and go crazy with it.
 
.... You are officially 'that' person. Ie the one who thinks that a person with a PhD is going to give two damns about your half baked political ideology.
You might as well supplement the conversation with an explanation of your morality system.
 
The unwritten rule is avoid politics during interviews. It came up during one of my interviews kind of expanding on healthcare reform asking what I would do to solve the crisis. I smirked and said "Vote for the right party" and we both kinda chuckled and moved on.
 
The unwritten rule is avoid politics during interviews. It came up during one of my interviews kind of expanding on healthcare reform asking what I would do to solve the crisis. I smirked and said "Vote for the right party" and we both kinda chuckled and moved on.

I only had two bring it up and I had a lot of interviews, too. One was a hardcore progressive person like me (accepted), the other was a staunch republican that addressed EVERY minute detail on my application but didn't address my diversity essay (I'm gay); waitlisted.
 
.... You are officially 'that' person. Ie the one who thinks that a person with a PhD is going to give two damns about your half baked political ideology.
You might as well supplement the conversation with an explanation of your morality system.

Seems to me that legalizing marijuana would be a fully-baked political ideology.

OP, I once had a clearly Republican interviewee ask me my opinion about Newt Gingrich and the Romney campaign. As a left-leaning moderate, I just choked back my vomit and said that Gingrich was a "very accomplished man" and that I thought Romney would stay ahead in the nomination polls. Both of those were reasonable, neutral statements. Then we moved on. I think it's best not to voice strong political opinions in an interview. That's not to say you can't have opinions at all, but IMO it's better in interviews (and in many practical situations) to instead simply show your political knowledge and analysis in a more neutral sense.

Also, legalizing meth? Have you ever SEEN anyone on meth? Or PCP? As a physician who has to treat the people who use these drugs, who won't pay for the care they receive, you'll likely change your mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Seems to me that legalizing marijuana would be a fully-baked political ideology.

OP, I once had a clearly Republican interviewee ask me my opinion about Newt Gingrich and the Romney campaign. As a left-leaning moderate, I just choked back my vomit and said that Gingrich was a "very accomplished man" and that I thought Romney would stay ahead in the nomination polls. Both of those were reasonable, neutral statements. Then we moved on. I think it's best not to voice strong political opinions in an interview. That's not to say you can't have opinions at all, but IMO it's better in interviews (and in many practical situations) to instead simply show your political knowledge and analysis in a more neutral sense.

Also, legalizing meth? Have you ever SEEN anyone on meth? Or PCP? As a physician who has to treat the people who use these drugs, who won't pay for the care they receive, you'll likely change your mind.
The bolded might be true, but a recent thread here demonstrates this view is not ubiquitous among attending physicians, like those sitting on admissions committees. I would avoid any and all strong political opinions, regardless of whether you think you are agreeing with the interviewer or not. The only exception to this would be a direct question about a specific medicine-related issues, like health care reform.
 
I'm not sure when this would even come up in an interview. If you're asked a question about healthcare reform, don't use it as a platform to expand upon your political views. It's fine to speak your opinion, but don't take the opportunity and go crazy with it.

This. I don't really see how this would come up unless you forced it. And offering it as a solution to healthcare reform would be a dumb idea.

If politics do come up, you are certainly allowed to show disagreements. But, it would be wise to back it up and be as neutral as possible.
 
Seems to me that legalizing marijuana would be a fully-baked political ideology.

OP, I once had a clearly Republican interviewee ask me my opinion about Newt Gingrich and the Romney campaign. As a left-leaning moderate, I just choked back my vomit and said that Gingrich was a "very accomplished man" and that I thought Romney would stay ahead in the nomination polls. Both of those were reasonable, neutral statements. Then we moved on. I think it's best not to voice strong political opinions in an interview. That's not to say you can't have opinions at all, but IMO it's better in interviews (and in many practical situations) to instead simply show your political knowledge and analysis in a more neutral sense.

Also, legalizing meth? Have you ever SEEN anyone on meth? Or PCP? As a physician who has to treat the people who use these drugs, who won't pay for the care they receive, you'll likely change your mind.

I'd talk about how Newt likes animals and is an avid zoo enthusiast. Anyone who likes animals can't be too bad right? Romney is the devil though... I don't think I've ever found someone so disconcerting...
 
On the drug war issue: opium nearly toppled the millenia-old Chinese Empire. Meth is more addictive and more destructive by several orders of magnitude. To only consider the issue of personal choice when it comes to drugs is a blatant oversimplification of the issue. These substances can literally dismantle societies if left unchecked.

I agree that weed should be legalized. It's not physically addictive, you can't overdose on it, and it doesn't make you violent. There's no clear reason why it should be illegal.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
On the drug war issue: opium nearly toppled the millenia-old Chinese Empire. Meth is more addictive and more destructive by several orders of magnitude. To only consider the issue of personal choice when it comes to drugs is a blatant oversimplification of the issue. These substances can literally dismantle societies if left unchecked.

Personal choice is an oversimplification to begin with, society needs a strong government to control people, because people are stupid. In regard to Opium and China, well that was a complex situation involving imperalistic forces like the US ( Yes, The Roosevelts actually made their money selling dope to the Chinese) and an empire that could not technologically fight them off. Hell the Mexican drug cartels wish they could be like the Western Powers, they had a solid 1/3rd of China addicted. In fact Opium remained a big problem until Mao came into China and pretty much murdered the majority of its users. No demand? -> No need for supply.

I agree that weed should be legalized. It's not physically addictive, you can't overdose on it, and it doesn't make you violent. There's no clear reason why it should be illegal.

I think marijuana is in all reality a weak drug. But it does have some negative side affects and may potentially produce weaker progeny. So I would want research on Marijuana done and for people to be educated with research from this century.
 
Well, when I mentioned China's opium problem, I really had the East India Company's opium trade in mind. But it's the same concept. Drugs like opiates and methamphetamine can cause addiction epidemics. They should be controlled. The libertarians' stance on drug policy is just one example of how ideology trumps reality for these people. See also: blind, dogmatic faith in the free market system. Libertarianism often seems more like a pseudo-religion to me than a political philosophy.
 
Do interviewers ever discuss politics with you? I lean left on some issues but right on others. I am also a softcore libertarian. For example, I don't think the FDA should be defunded and disbanded, as a true libertarian would. But, I do think all drugs, including prescription medications, should be legal. Marijuana, heroin, meth, cocaine, Vicodin, Percocet, you name it. I'm not sure how this would sit with the interviewers, who tend to be somewhat liberal secular humanists, from what I've heard. Thoughts?

Don't go into medicine.
 
Use some common sense here. If it's controversial, don't bring it up. If the interviewer brings it up, hedge your responses.
 
OP, I don't know about meth, vicodin, and the rest.... but marijuana should be legalized. It will create profit for the state, which could be invested in society. It will create a safe environment for users, since it will be regulated... plus no legal consequences. I personally don't smoke, but I think there are other legal substances that are more detrimental for ones' health than weed.

In regards to talking about politics during interviews, I guess it depends on the applicant. If you're not interested in politics at all, then don't talk about it. I would definitively take a stand if the topic comes up during an interview because it is something I am interested in. My ideology is a big part of why I want to go into medicine...
 
Personal choice is an oversimplification to begin with, society needs a strong government to control people, because people are stupid. In regard to Opium and China, well that was a complex situation involving imperalistic forces like the US ( Yes, The Roosevelts actually made their money selling dope to the Chinese) and an empire that could not technologically fight them off. Hell the Mexican drug cartels wish they could be like the Western Powers, they had a solid 1/3rd of China addicted. In fact Opium remained a big problem until Mao came into China and pretty much murdered the majority of its users. No demand? -> No need for supply.

I think marijuana is in all reality a weak drug. But it does have some negative side affects and may potentially produce weaker progeny. So I would want research on Marijuana done and for people to be educated with research from this century.
You realize the Opium Wars were between England and China, not the US and China, right?

The British had a trade deficit, where China didn't want anything the English had to trade other than specie, while the western Europeans wanted many of the spices, silk, and china, among other things, that China had to export. Thinking at the time was that any net loss of specie (gold and silver) from a country was disastrous to its economy. The British therefore essentially forced the Chinese to start allowing the importation of Opium, primarily grown in England's Indian colonies. The sudden drain of gold and silver from the country, combined with the other problems that widespread drug addiction causes, led to war between the Chinese, trying to stop importation of the drug, and the British, trying to keep their very lucritive drug trade going.

America did play a minor role in the second opium war (naval support and the assault on a single fort), but the essence of the conflict was China vs. Britain.
 
Also, legalizing meth? Have you ever SEEN anyone on meth? Or PCP? As a physician who has to treat the people who use these drugs, who won't pay for the care they receive, you'll likely change your mind.

Marijuana aside, people that push to legalize all drugs clearly don't understand addiction. Legalizing meth is like handing out guns on the psych ward. Yeah, someone's going to get hurt.
 
Marijuana aside, people that push to legalize all drugs clearly don't understand addiction. Legalizing meth is like handing out guns on the psych ward. Yeah, someone's going to get hurt.

I wonder how many people on this board would try meth if it suddenly became legalized.... I'm assuming you might?
 
Marijuana should be legalized. It will create profit for the state, which could be invested in society.

I'm not opposed the decriminalization of MJ, but I don't buy into the 'it would be an economic stimulus' argument.

There are a lot of reasons why revenues may fall. For one, legalization will put many local state growers and dispensaries out of business. Prices will likely fall as the legal risks associated with production are diminished. This will lead to more production and lower prices. Certainly, large for-profit companies like Altria would be anxious to sweep in and take over the production. Legislation could be adopted to help protect local state growers from such competition, but I don't see how such protectionism will hold up in court. And sure, you can 'tax' the sales, but the incremental local benefits of that revenue will likely not be more than the revenue that's eliminated.

I do think that such a move would be a positive one towards stemming drug trafficking in MJ, but it's simply not going to produce a whole lot of extra revenue for the states, though certain companies will make out pretty well.
 
You realize the Opium Wars were between England and China, not the US and China, right?

The British had a trade deficit, where China didn't want anything the English had to trade other than specie, while the western Europeans wanted many of the spices, silk, and china, among other things, that China had to export. Thinking at the time was that any net loss of specie (gold and silver) from a country was disastrous to its economy. The British therefore essentially forced the Chinese to start allowing the importation of Opium, primarily grown in England's Indian colonies. The sudden drain of gold and silver from the country, combined with the other problems that widespread drug addiction causes, led to war between the Chinese, trying to stop importation of the drug, and the British, trying to keep their very lucritive drug trade going.

America did play a minor role in the second opium war (naval support and the assault on a single fort), but the essence of the conflict was China vs. Britain.

The second included France if I'm correct. But yes, I mentioned to because it is good to acknowledge out place in the world of drugs.
 
Marijuana aside, people that push to legalize all drugs clearly don't understand addiction. Legalizing meth is like handing out guns on the psych ward. Yeah, someone's going to get hurt.

I think the people who advocate legalizing all drugs believe drug use needs to be treated as the health issue that it is rather than as a criminal issue. Addiction is a disease. Throwing a drug addict in prison does nothing to solve that person's problems and in fact likely compounds those problems. Not to mention, we're wasting vast sums of money and law enforcement resources.

I don't think anyone is advocating allowing heroin and methamphetamine to be bought on store shelves. But rather, if you get busted on the street for possession of a controlled substance, let's not brand you as a criminal for the rest of your life, making it near impossible to land a decent job in the future or get federal aid for college i.e. actually turn your life around.
 
I wonder how many people on this board would try meth if it suddenly became legalized.... I'm assuming you might?

That's an insulting comment. And I don't even know what you meant.

To be clear: I don't support the legalization of meth. I would be just as likely to try meth as I would try injecting myself with an HIV infected syringe (hint: not a lot). I view addiction as a disease, and meth is notorious in that many people get hooked on the first try. The dopamine surge it produces is overwhelming, and many spend the rest of their shortened lives trying to replicate it.
 
Last edited:
I think the people who advocate legalizing all drugs believe drug use needs to be treated as the health issue that it is rather than as a criminal issue.

I feel that treatment should be a collaborative effort between the criminal justice and health systems. Without the CJ system, many addicts will not seek treatment. I know addicts that are appreciative of the CJ system because it forced them to seek help. I also know addicts that rotted away for months and years, and immediately regressed upon release. Breaking addiction requires a willingness to change on the addict's part. I do agree that we should not just throw these folks in prison, though......as many jurisdictions do. There should be a federal law mandating that funds that would be used for incarceration should be diverted to treatment options.
 
I think the people who advocate legalizing all drugs believe drug use needs to be treated as the health issue that it is rather than as a criminal issue. Addiction is a disease. Throwing a drug addict in prison does nothing to solve that person's problems and in fact likely compounds those problems. Not to mention, we're wasting vast sums of money and law enforcement resources.

I don't think anyone is advocating allowing heroin and methamphetamine to be bought on store shelves. But rather, if you get busted on the street for possession of a controlled substance, let's not brand you as a criminal for the rest of your life, making it near impossible to land a decent job in the future or get federal aid for college i.e. actually turn your life around.

So your problem is with the punishment for breaking the law, not the law itself.
 
That's an insulting comment. And I don't even know what you meant.

To be clear: I don't support the legalization of meth. I would be just as likely to try meth as I would try injecting myself with an HIV infected syringe (hint: not a lot). I view addiction as a disease, and meth is notorious in that many people get hooked on the first try. The dopamine surge it produces is overwhelming, and many spend the rest of their shortened lives trying to replicate it.

Not trying to insult. Trying to make a point. You are arguing that you need the government to protect you from yourself. I doubt that usage would increase if legalization became a reality.
 
Last edited:
.... You are officially 'that' person. Ie the one who thinks that a person with a PhD is going to give two damns about your half baked political ideology.
You might as well supplement the conversation with an explanation of your morality system.

I really dislike you, but for some reason, I just can't get enough of you. You're my drug. :)

Oh, and I would never offer up my perspective on this or any other issue. But I was wondering if politics would ever be brought up in an interview...not sure why you're so negative...

Seems to me that legalizing marijuana would be a fully-baked political ideology.

OP, I once had a clearly Republican interviewee ask me my opinion about Newt Gingrich and the Romney campaign. As a left-leaning moderate, I just choked back my vomit and said that Gingrich was a "very accomplished man" and that I thought Romney would stay ahead in the nomination polls. Both of those were reasonable, neutral statements. Then we moved on. I think it's best not to voice strong political opinions in an interview. That's not to say you can't have opinions at all, but IMO it's better in interviews (and in many practical situations) to instead simply show your political knowledge and analysis in a more neutral sense.

Also, legalizing meth? Have you ever SEEN anyone on meth? Or PCP? As a physician who has to treat the people who use these drugs, who won't pay for the care they receive, you'll likely change your mind.

Who would use (smoke? inject?) meth when it's legal who doesn't already use it now?

I'd talk about how Newt likes animals and is an avid zoo enthusiast. Anyone who likes animals can't be too bad right? Romney is the devil though... I don't think I've ever found someone so disconcerting...

I agree, actually. I'm still not convinced that Romney is human.

Don't go into medicine.

Wat?

I wonder how many people on this board would try meth if it suddenly became legalized.... I'm assuming you might?

This is the whole point.
 
Not trying to insult. Trying to make a point. You are arguing that you need the government to protect you from yourself. I doubt that usage would increase if legalization became a reality.

Essentially, yes, I am making that point. However, I only make it in regards to addiction because 'addicts' don't have the ability to think rationally. They have lost that ability and they need help. The government currently does a horrible job helping addicts recover, though, so I guess I would prefer that they do nothing unless their intervention model is revised from jail to sustained treatment. And, btw, 30-days is not adequate to allow an addict's mind to recover. At least 90 to 180 days of abstinence are needed for an addicts neurotransmitters to down-regulate enough for them to begin to enjoy life without the effects of their DOC.
 
Last edited:
Essentially, yes, I am making that point. However, I only make it in regards to addiction because 'addicts' don't have the ability to think rationally. They have lost that ability and they need help.

I'm just curious who would become newly addicted to heroin if it was legalized? The same people do the same stupid stuff regardless of whether it's legal.

And again, I think our society dealt with trans fat really well. We EDUCATED AND INFORMED the public about the dangers of trans fat, and required trans fat content to be shown on packaging. Parents taught their children about the dangers of trans fat. Did we criminalize it, and crowd our prisons with people who tried trans fat? No. You can go out and buy cookies and other crap with trans fat rigiht now, but guess what? The vast majority of people choose not to. That's because we think for ourselves and take responsiblity for our own actions. We need more of that in this country, in my opinion.

Edit: And it has been made clear that most interviews don't include a dedicated discussion of politics. My question has been answered, thanks all!
 
I'm just curious who would become newly addicted to heroin if it was legalized? The same people do the same stupid stuff regardless of whether it's legal.

I don't think legalization would lead to significant numbers of new addictions. All I was saying is that I think the CJ system should be modified to facilitate treatment for these addicts.... So, I disagree that the drugs (except MJ) should be decriminalized.


And again, I think our society dealt with trans fat really well. We EDUCATED AND INFORMED the public about the dangers of trans fat, and required trans fat content to be shown on packaging.

Education is the most viable form of prevention. However, addicts don't care about being educated and informed. They are controlled by their disease, and thus need intervention. This is, after all, why they call it 'intervention'. :)

P.s. I'm partially libertarian in my own political views. I do compromise, though, when it comes to public health, education, and environment. I think that the governments role should be limited, but thoughtful in regards to society's interests.
 
Last edited:
I don't think legalization would lead to significant numbers of new addictions. All I was saying is that I think the CJ system should be modified to facilitate treatment for these addicts.... So, I disagree that the drugs (except MJ) should be decriminalized.




Education is the most viable form of prevention. However, addicts don't care about being educated and informed. They are controlled by their disease, and thus need intervention. This is, after all, why they call it 'intervention'. :)

P.s. I'm partially libertarian in my own political views. I do compromise, though, when it comes to public health and education. I think that the governments role should be limited, but thoughtful in regards to society's interests.

So decriminalization wouldn't cause new addicts, meaning the legality of say, meth, is irrelevant. But you err on the side of nanny state by making it illegal?
 
So decriminalization wouldn't cause new addicts, meaning the legality of say, meth, is irrelevant. But you err on the side of nanny state by making it illegal?

I believe that it is in society's best interest to foster an effective intervention model. I am open to debate regarding the pragmatics of it. We need to remember that addicts are our mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, etc., they are "the people in our neighborhood".
 
I believe that it is in society's best interest to foster an effective intervention model. I am open to debate regarding the pragmatics of it.

Sounds like a good starting point for a new thread. :) Note that we offer treatment for alcoholics and obese people, so we know how to deal with people who put dangerous things in their body.
 
i'm just curious who would become newly addicted to heroin if it was legalized? The same people do the same stupid stuff regardless of whether it's legal.

And again, i think our society dealt with trans fat really well. We educated and informed the public about the dangers of trans fat, and required trans fat content to be shown on packaging. Parents taught their children about the dangers of trans fat. Did we criminalize it, and crowd our prisons with people who tried trans fat? No. You can go out and buy cookies and other crap with trans fat rigiht now, but guess what? The vast majority of people choose not to. that's because we think for ourselves and take responsiblity for our own actions. We need more of that in this country, in my opinion.

edit: And it has been made clear that most interviews don't include a dedicated discussion of politics. My question has been answered, thanks all!

+1
 
It would also depend on which region of the country in which you are interviewing. For example, if you're out on the left coast interviewers might be more receptive to cannibis decriminalization. However, those views might be a black mark if you're in the South.
 
Do interviewers ever discuss politics with you? I lean left on some issues but right on others. I am also a softcore libertarian. For example, I don't think the FDA should be defunded and disbanded, as a true libertarian would. But, I do think all drugs, including prescription medications, should be legal. Marijuana, heroin, meth, cocaine, Vicodin, Percocet, you name it. I'm not sure how this would sit with the interviewers, who tend to be somewhat liberal secular humanists, from what I've heard. Thoughts?
I've been asked about politics on interviews, but never brought up my personal beliefs. At my VCOM interview, during the time Bush initially asked for the 700 billion in bailout money, it came up and my interviewer asked me if I felt it was appropriate or should we spend it on another area where he referenced our un(der)insured, homeless, etc. Insert garble about "blah blah blah, we should care for our citizens, it is what makes us a great country, rabble rabble rabble."

If your view isn't the norm, don't bring it up. Toe the party line so to speak in interviews. This is all a game.
 
Politics were never a topic I talked about in my interviews. It's good to prepare for interviews, but kinda just play it by ear if something unexpected comes up and give a good, safe answer. Keep your radical ideas to yourself until you get admitted.
 
Who would use (smoke? inject?) meth when it's legal who doesn't already use it now?

Probably a lot of rebellious young people. You are naive in thinking that the choices of people like yourself (a clearly intelligent pre-med) would mirror most of society. I think there are three groups of people we could categorize here: 1) those who are likely to do meth now, who are mostly impoverished and have access to it. 2) Those who are "good kids" and would never try it, legal or illegal--AKA most of SDN. 3) Everyone else, kids who probably aren't ambitious enough to want to go to med school or law school, aren't poor but probably aren't rich, and who try a lot of other drugs such as shrooms that aren't addictive but make for a fun trip. I know a lot of people in this third category, and I believe they would be the most likely to try drugs like meth or heroin if they were legalized. The problem with these highly addictive drugs is that, if legalized, it'd be a lot easier to try it "just once". Well, that's often enough to cause an addiction. There's a huge stigma agains these drugs NOW, in part because they are illegal. But imagine society in 40, 50 years if you were to legalize them. Would the country be completely filled with *****ic drug addicts? I don't know, but I'm not willing to take that chance. There needs to be a way to punish people who distribute these drugs.
 

I am all for decriminalizing recreational drugs, or at least the usage of them on an individual level.

I don't think most people in medicine hold the view it's better if we let anyone buy whatever they want and then use it. What about heart medications or Viagra? Should we make all drugs, abusable or not, available without a prescription? Your job is to make people and populations more healthy. Allowing easy, legal access to heroin and PCP probably isn't going to do that, just based on my observations....

To address your original question, play it safe and don't try to force this topic in an interview.
 
There needs to be a way to punish people who distribute these drugs.

That's pretty much decriminalization.

Stop arresting people for using drugs/possessing smaller amounts. Free up money for treatment programs and taking down the big players.

Heck, even if we spent the same ridiculous sum of money, changing the strategy would lead to better results.
 
I'm just curious who would become newly addicted to heroin if it was legalized? The same people do the same stupid stuff regardless of whether it's legal.

And again, I think our society dealt with trans fat really well. We EDUCATED AND INFORMED the public about the dangers of trans fat, and required trans fat content to be shown on packaging. Parents taught their children about the dangers of trans fat. Did we criminalize it, and crowd our prisons with people who tried trans fat? No. You can go out and buy cookies and other crap with trans fat rigiht now, but guess what? The vast majority of people choose not to. That's because we think for ourselves and take responsiblity for our own actions. We need more of that in this country, in my opinion.

Edit: And it has been made clear that most interviews don't include a dedicated discussion of politics. My question has been answered, thanks all!


While this is true and nice in an ideal world, we need to remember that not everyone is becoming a heroin addict. The majority of heroin addicts come from a very homogenized group of people with certain disadvantages. Sure we can admit that we know heroin is bad, or etc, but can the same be said of people living under a system which does not communicate that or help to prevent its proliferation?

The reality is that it's not all about personal choice. There are many other factors that are out of our control, such as the reality of unfair birth ( No one is born into the same condition in life). It's a lot about luck and having an extensive support system, that we, the majority of the upper middle class premeds grew up with.

Also we educate a lot of people about a lot of things. People are generally prone to doing stupid things, especially teens as they do statistically with higher incidence than adults believe bad things only happen to other people. Risky teen behavior, a lack of a strong support system ( Parents or Educational system), and principle of visibility ( You see something, you're more likely to think about it) = a bad problem.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty much decriminalization.

Stop arresting people for using drugs/possessing smaller amounts. Free up money for treatment programs and taking down the big players.

Heck, even if we spent the same ridiculous sum of money, changing the strategy would lead to better results.

The only way to end the drug war, is to end demand for drugs. Attacking the supply is a superficial strategy that seemingly costs little, but over time probably would cost more than just ending the demand.
 
That's pretty much decriminalization.

Stop arresting people for using drugs/possessing smaller amounts. Free up money for treatment programs and taking down the big players.

Heck, even if we spent the same ridiculous sum of money, changing the strategy would lead to better results.

I'm all for this strategy, but decriminalization is not the same as full legalization. I'm in favor of the former, completely against the latter (of physiologically addictive drugs like meth and heroin).
 
The only way to end the drug war, is to end demand for drugs. Attacking the supply is a superficial strategy that seemingly costs little, but over time probably would cost more than just ending the demand.

Very true. Which is why I said we could spend the same crazy amount of money with much better results if we attacked the supply AND improved treatment programs. I think treatment programs to attack demand is the best strategy, but come on, how could you say that we will stop trying to target drug dealers altogether? That would never fly.

I'm all for this strategy, but decriminalization is not the same as full legalization. I'm in favor of the former, completely against the latter (of physiologically addictive drugs like meth and heroin).

I know the difference. And I too favor decriminalization.
 
Top