David Lounsbury

It seems mostly straightforward and reasonable. I do have two considerations I'd like to raise. 1. I believe that the efforts to "avoid negative connotations" are sometimes too strenuous in documents such as this, such that the actual meaning (denotation) is actually lost or distorted. For example, instead of "misuse or abuse" the phrasing for "emerging substance use disorder" has been substituted. This really isn't the same thing and actually risks conflating episodic behavior and a diagnosable medical condition. (You can probably only call something like this "emerging" in a retrospective fashion, anyway. It's like trying to time the stock market - a fool's errand). It is possible to be "too woke." If you'll allow me to provide an admittedly digressive example, there is a movement (in the UK, at least) to re-define "breast milk" as "human milk" or "chest milk." Of course, we all know that the breast and chest are actually different things, that men actually DO have breasts (albeit usually underdeveloped ones), and that this (i.e. "breastedness") literally is one of the major things that defines homo sapiens as belonging to the mammal class of the animal kingdom. 2. Other than that, my main (and more relevant) concern with the general climate in cannabinoid prescribing is that society and patients increasingly seem to view this as a panacea. Discussions with respect to "evidence-based indications" for therapeutic choices do not go well when "their other doctors" apparently had no problem with giving them what they wanted. I sense that both of my opinions are probably minority positions now, so I'll leave it at that.

Comments for this post are now closed. If you would like to share your feedback on this topic, please email support@cpsa.ca.

« Previous Entry