Part one (crime) – Regulation(guns/narcotics) vs. results

quote
Well if you really want discuss this and not narcotics - which I'll just a run down now on why it's foolish to put further regulations on it now:
end quote

a) doctors are subject to heavy regulations as it is. the doctor is registered, and patients are registered through their doctors And insurance. there are already several records that exist. If it's about control, all it takes is access to qualified personnel to go through those records.
end quote

If illegal prescription drug use is costing the insurance companies 72.5 billion dollars annually as claimed, are the heavy regulations working? Are they heavy enough? Regulation will not always produce the intended results in certain applications (read intended as: the reason we are given for the need). More regulation will “not work” just as well as the regulations that are not working already. This is the basis of my argument.

quote
b) the cost of prescription narcotics is already expensive - though very overpriced by pharma companies so why should it be the responsibility of the person who was Medically Prescribed a medication to pay for something that they have every right to?
end quote

There are 4 important points that relate to my argument in that statement. Cost, responsibility, prescribed, right to.

1.Cost – A pro-regulation argument might be - Proper (good and sensible, not more) regulation could “potentially” offset the cost by saving money for the insurance companies. “Potentially offset” because Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies have no rivals in lobby efforts to control regulation of themselves. Firearms and ammunition mfg. is miniscule by comparison. Their primary goal is reducing cost and increasing profit, not saving the customer money. The consequence is regulation will be shaped by them and for them, not the end user. They spend hundreds of millions lobbying and advertising and the end-user covers that either by direct purchase or through insurance premiums. There are no pro-gun advertisements in mass media as opposed to endless flood of pro-drug advertisement. There are “incentive for distribution” programs by the drug manufacturers, not by gun and ammunition manufacturers.

2.Responsibility - The patient/gun owner is responsible for his/her own actions. Holding someone else accountable will not affect what he/she does. The law-breaking patient, doctor/medical professional, police officer, lawyer, judge, politician will continue to break the law until he/she is held accountable. If he/she is not held accountable, no amount of regulation will change their behavior and no one is any safer from the effects of their law breaking.

The law-abiding patient/gun owner will continue to be law-abiding regardless of how heavy the regulatory burden is and will continue to bear the financial load. Little, if anything, changes from the implementation of regulation/legislation with respect to creating a safer less criminal environment.

3.Prescribed: “Prescribed by” does not automatically guarantee it is done legally or being used legally. By and large the medical community and the gun community are civic-minded, law-abiding, responsible citizens. There will always be someone somewhere in every level of society who refuses to abide by the law of their of land for their own personal gain. Each state legislates it’s own laws to punish these people.

4.Right to – Constitutional for gun ownership. Your statement “could” indicate that you believe the patient should not have to pay anything for medication because he has a right to it. I would disagree if that is what you mean. If you are just referring to the extra cost because of more regulation, I would just say that that is the price to be paid to regulate criminal activity for the safety of society. I base my opinion on the regulation of guns to regulate crime. Everyone for gun regulation is OK with the higher costs it brings about. Why not this?