Talk about politics (esp. libertarianism) during interview?

[NickNaylor]

Just for the record: The consistent straw man "libertarians," or pro-legalization crowd brings up about the comparison between marijuana and alcohol is NOT a good case for the legalization of marijuana, but, rather, a good argument AGAINST the legality of alcohol.

Now, the major difference between alcohol and other potentially/actually harmful substances is that one can consume alcohol and not be harmfully impacted--alcohol consumption actually has a statistically curvilinear correlation to health (a little alcohol consumption actually has positive benefits for health). Moreover, a person can drink alcohol and not become intoxicated.

This is not the case with marijuana, methamphetamine, crack, and so on. The argument can go something like this: one can drink alcohol with no intention of becoming intoxicated, on the other hand, one consumes other substances for the sole purpose of getting intoxicated (high).

This is why other drugs than alcohol are illegal. Their sole purpose is mind-altering/intoxication. This is not so with booze.

I'm really tired of people posing the tired argument of alcohol being worse than weed, and therefore Weed should be legalized. Again, If anything, that argument lends itself to supporting prohibition of alcohol, not to the legalization of marijuana.

Your argument: if anything has the effect of or is used intentionally for altering your mental status, it should be illegal. Seems a little... black and white.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly. Is black and white a bad thing?

I don't know... do you want to live inside a house constructed by an engineer who only used algebra? Life is not simple, to deny that there is a massive spectrum of gray in between is silly.

 

[sotto voce]

Just for the record: The consistent straw man "libertarians," or pro-legalization crowd brings up about the comparison between marijuana and alcohol is NOT a good case for the legalization of marijuana, but, rather, a good argument AGAINST the legality of alcohol.

Now, the major difference between alcohol and other potentially/actually harmful substances is that one can consume alcohol and not be harmfully impacted--alcohol consumption actually has a statistically curvilinear correlation to health (a little alcohol consumption actually has positive benefits for health). Moreover, a person can drink alcohol and not become intoxicated.

This is not the case with marijuana, methamphetamine, crack, and so on. The argument can go something like this: one can drink alcohol with no intention of becoming intoxicated, on the other hand, one consumes other substances for the sole purpose of getting intoxicated (high).

This is why other drugs than alcohol are illegal. Their sole purpose is mind-altering/intoxication. This is not so with booze.

I'm really tired of people posing the tired argument of alcohol being worse than weed, and therefore Weed should be legalized. Again, If anything, that argument lends itself to supporting prohibition of alcohol, not to the legalization of marijuana.

The details of the substances themselves aren't actually important. It's about people deciding what they want to put in their own bodies, which is no business of yours or of the state. But I'll play along.

The pressing question is: Should we imprison cigarette smokers? There's no quantity of tobacco/nicotine that is good for you (unlike with alcohol). And one "consumes" a cigarette solely for the purposes of becoming intoxicated, i.e., getting that sweet, sweet fix. Kind of like meth, right?

Anyway, the information in your post is what the government should provide to the public, and then the public can decide what they want to do. Case in point, as previously mentioned: trans fat. Any quantity of trans fat is bad for you, yet we didn't criminalize it. We informed the public and they made their own decision on the matter. No nanny state needed.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

Anyway, the information in your post is what the government should provide to the public, and then the public can decide what they want to do. Case in point, as previously mentioned: trans fat. Any quantity of trans fat is bad for you, yet we didn't criminalize it. We informed the public and they made their own decision on the matter. No nanny state needed.

Your trans fat analogy is not appropriate. Trans fats are not an addictive substance.

 

[sotto voce]

Your trans fat analogy is not appropriate. Trans fats are not an addictive substance.

True. Alternatively, consider cigarettes, chew, and sugar, all of which are addictive.

Edit: Why is this still dragging one?!? My questions was if politics is discussed during interviews. The answer is mostly no, but maybe on occasion. I promise to not post on this thread again.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

True. Alternatively, consider cigarettes, chew, and sugar, all of which are addictive.

Edit: Why is this still dragging one?!? My questions was if politics is discussed during interviews. The answer is mostly no, but maybe on occasion. I promise to not post on this thread again.

It's a thread about politics on SDN, that's why it's dragging.

I'll try my durned best to quit responding after this, but really, if you are actually trying to compare a sugar addiction to a heroin addiction, you really need to rethink your blind ideological loyalty.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

Its hard to see why Ron Paul, A 1961 graduate of Duke Medical School and Licensed OBGYN, is not a skeptic, atheist or a "cool" libertarian like Penn Jillette . In Fact, he has been very much a wannabe naturopathic doctor. For god's sake the guy was a flight surgeon during Vietnam. I admire him on one thing, he was willing to refuse medicare and medicaid patients and negotiated his practice' prices with people. He was market driven and has delivered more than 4000 babies (not a lot, but still good for a Country practice.) He is also a man of integrity, a lacking trait in most political people. I do wish more doctors would see this. Libertarianism is not stupid nor unscientific. Also, Is it possible that there could be a libertarian psychiatrist? I know one. He is from NYU.

 

[annonymous819]

My conservative beliefs were fair game in Texas interviews and I openly discussed them with interviewers who tended to align with my beliefs (or so it appeared.)

Anywhere outside of Texas I've kept my mouth shut when the topic came up.

Know your crowd.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

My conservative beliefs were fair game in Texas interviews and I openly discussed them with interviewers who tended to align with my beliefs (or so it appeared.)

Anywhere outside of Texas I've kept my mouth shut when the topic came up.

Know your crowd.

It sucks that medicine is being politicized. Where the **** is our Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman when you need him. Medicine is Medicine, not for political or social progress.

 

[endtheleftwing]

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.

More people are hurt from the war on the drugs than the drugs themselves

 

[WedgeDawg]

Politics actually came up in two of my interviews. One question asked was about treating or working with people with different political (or moral or whatever) viewpoints from you. Another was asking about the fairness of people with absurd amounts of money having access to specialized medical treatment unavailable to the general population. At their core, these questions were ethical/philosophical, but they also involved political opinions.

I understand this is an enormous necrobump, but I figure if someone has a similar question, I might as well help out the best I can.

 

[Spector1]

unless you are saying something about health care reform, I would steer well clear of any politicking

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

I wonder if OP is a doctor yet? Anyways, how stupid can you be that you think legalizing the sale of antibiotics would be a good thing? I would much favor keeping antibiotics as Rx only, and removing all control from inebriating drugs. Which one has greater potential to cause societal harm?

 

[Salt Salt]

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.

That's because they're not legally allowed to bring it up until you do. Same with having kids, etc.

Also, I see your point, but with soooo many other factors going into the decision to accept vs. waitlist, we really can't know for certain that the politics had anything to do with it.