"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4c4ff2fb@news.povray.org...

> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm
> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in
> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is
> a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF
> SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
>
> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even
> chemistry training.

Such policies have little or nothing to do with science. It's mainly an
economic, sociological and logistic issue.

You don't need the professional opinion of a chemist to decide what drunk
driving fines or sentences should be, or whether to fine them at all, for
instance. You just ask the chemist or doctor to provide you with the means
of measuring the amount of alcohol in blood. That's it.

> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors* (who I'd consider to have
> medical training and who have studied the effects and have decided that
> there's a benefit, for example, for people with chronic untreatable pain)
> are in favor of it,

Doctors can only look at it from a limited perspective, so they don't make
good policymakers. You duly note their professional opinion. The economic
and social implications are a completely different and larger part of the
entire picture. I'm not arguing pro or con, but it's naive to think that
those who are con are anti-doctor, anti-medicine and anti-science.

Post a reply to this message