Big Brother's Pain

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Populists often complain that the government fails to exercise sufficient control over the people. Here I present a counter-example, an instance, among many, in which the government exercises altogether too much control and exercises it badly (that is, with a combination of stupidity and brutality). Also, the article itself is of such a quality that I should be inclined to include it in a nonfiction anthology, if I were to edit such a thing.   One striking aspect of this problem is that even such a powerful, and relatively intelligent and educated, constituency as doctors seems unable to reign in these vicious governmental incursions into their territory. I suspect this is partly due to the generally cavalier attitude of the "macho" medical establishment toward the problem of pain. The projected "machismo", of course, is laughable--and, fortunately, this superficial posturing may gradually fade as the female of the species overruns the profession. These doctors are cowardly conformists bowing to the half-wits who run the DEA and the quasi-fascist prosecutors who prefer to risk sending innocent men to prison rather than risk allowing guilty men to remain free.   I think this article makes it clear that much of the mismanagement of pain in this country is due to ignorance and prejudice. But, the government should not be in the business of managing pain in the first place. I think bureaucratic or judicial determination of the appropriate amount of pain a person should be forced to live with is far outside the bounds of government's proper sphere of action. The state should interfere only when someone inflicts harm upon another--not when (as in the case of a drug user) he might be inflicting harm upon himself. It is this type of tyrannical brutality that invites and justifies the existence of the black market, the mafias, the corrupt officials, and all the other people and organizations that effectively resist or subvert the government. The only thing that causes me to hesitate in my advocacy for this degree of liberty: the possibility that the sober part of the population will be burdened by the possible overbreeding of the heavy users (though I am not aware of evidence that this group is especially prone to procreation).