From first reading Flanigan’s thesis, I did not agree. The concept of making prescription grade drugs available without a prescription seemed to be getting too close to anarchy for me. The concept of getting rid of the checks that are intended to keep people from abusing drugs seems dangerous. While I understood the argument of DIC and how it should work in reverse as well, the idea that doctors should respect a patient’s decision if it is not in the best interest of the patient’s health does not sit right with me.

A large part of my disagreement comes from biases that I hold that restrict me from being able to agree with Flanigan despite her laying out her case well. A large of portion of my family are in careers that are STEM focused. The importance of modern medicine was instilled in me young. One of my uncles was a doctor as a hospital for a long time that would often see cases of opioid addition. His town in Ohio was one of the capitals for opioid addiction. He told us how awful it was to see these addiction cases. While Flanigan addressed this concern in the article, the concern I still have for it is enough for me to reject Flanigan’s argument. However, the decriminalization of prescription drugs, especially in these cases, still resonates with me. I agree with this portion of her argument. The decriminalization of prescription drugs will allow for better treatment options of those that suffer from drug addiction while still allowing for the drugs to be prescribed.