The issue is who gets to decide whether the benefit outweighs the harm: the individual concerned or some third party. The former case is freedom, the latter is tyranny.

Pretty vague and noncommittal language.

In the near future we may see an ‘epidemic’ of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen

New carcinogen? People have been getting high since the turn of the century. Where’s our epidemic?

Contrast with this study for example: Cannabis exerts protective effect against cancer

The issue of cannabis is an extremely polarized one, and as a self-described statistics fan I am sure you are aware of the effect politics have on scientific studies.

Further I don’t know what this would possibly have to do with self-medicating — aren’t there medications prescribed by doctors which increase ones risk of cancer or death through other means?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/hl_nm/cancer_cannabis_dc

There can’t be a “right to be free from pain” because in some cases that isn’t even possible. Rather, a right that “people refrain from preventing X from doing what he can to ameliorate his pain, and people refrain from preventing Y from helping X do so” should exist.

However, as we all know, drugs tend to have side effects, and I’m sure Lyrica has some, too – the NYT article mentioned some of them.
Is taking the decision of prescribing drugs out of the hands of doctors and into the hands of patients a good idea? I certainly don’t think so. I mean, If lyrica’s in the list, why not morpine? Vicodin? why should Dr. Gregory house, who is in constant pain, not be able to purchase all the Vicodin he can?

Pain is an awful thing, but if the side effects cause harm to the patient – and doctors may be more aware of their severity than patients – you can’t blame doctors that would rather see their patients live with constant pain than suffer from those side effects.

In short, until we get a drug that has little or no side effects and is not addictive, the whole idea of a fundamental right to be free from pain is crock.

And of course, then we have to define addiction — probably a debate for another time.

that sixteen percent of their patients were using illicit (street) drugs and other studies showed as high as thirty-four percent.

Which I would suspect is likely because one of the more effective natural painkillers is illegal to use in this country, even for medical reasons. It took us 90 or so comments for us to reach the drug war debate; on reflection I’m surprised it took so many.