Critics are biased, and so are readers. But intelligent readers soon discover how to allow for the windage of their own and a critic's prejudices. Whitney Balliett, Dinosaurs in the Morning, 1962.The issue of drug for psychologists is probably one of the most critical and timely issues now facing Canadian psychologists (Pagliaro & Pagliaro, 1995a). In this regard, Dozois and Dobson (see current issue) should be acknowledged for stimulating the discussion of this issue here in Canada. However, after careful, thorough, and thoughtful review of their arguments, I find their conclusion, that psychologists in Canada not seek drug privileges,(f.1) to be intellectually naive and wanting, professionally untenable, and, in relation to some of the recent writings of one of the authors (i.e., Dobson), philosophically inconsistent. In the following pages, I will present a brief critical commentary of Dozois and Dobson's specious arguments against drug for Canadian psychologists.Before presenting my critical commentary,I believe that it may be of some assistance to readers to know my own personal beliefs in regard to drug for psychologists. In this regard, I have previously and consistently (e.g., Pagliaro, 1989, 1994) endorsed the concept of granting drug to psychologists. This endorsement has not been as a carte blanche enfranchisement for the entire profession, but rather for those psychologists in Canada and other countries, who, having recognized a need for this additional form of therapeutic intervention and desiring to be better able to provide more comprehensive mental health services for their patients, attain appropriate and sufficient education and clinical practicum experience in order to competently prescribe psychotropics as an adjunct to psychotherapy. Even for these psychologists, I would emphasize the caveat that their should apply only to those cases where their patients are also receiving psychotherapy.(f.2) Further to my support of psychotropic for psychologists, I have, over the past several years, co - developed and taught a hierarchical series of graduate courses in pharmacopsychology(f.3) at the University of Alberta. This series was specifically designed to provide psychologists with the knowledge and skills required to competently and ethically prescribe thepsychotropics as an adjunct to their psychotherapy (Pagliaro, 1993; Pagliaro & Pagliaro, 1995a). These courses have been well received by graduate students in master degree and doctoral programs and also have attracted several post - doctoral chartered psychologists who are engaged in active clinical practice. Let us now turn to a critical commentary of the several arguments presented by Dozois and Dobson against prescription privileges for Canadian psychologists.Dozois and Dobson's ArgumentsThe following critical commentary of Dozois and Dobson's arguments is organized according to their headings of: of Care; Marketability; Practical Impediments; and Canadian Implications.QUALITY OF CAREUnder their heading of Quality of Care the following arguments were noted: lack of need; lack of public pressure; and inability to prescribe competently.Lack of need. ...only 20% of the patients seen by psychologists between 1980 and 1987 were referred to other professionals for part of their outpatient mental health services... In addition, many psychologists report that they have functionally prescribed for years by collaborating with physicians (p. ms 16 - 17).I do not know what level of significance Dozois and Dobson were using in considering the figure of 20% referrals to be less relevant, but according to every psychological research study that I have been involved in, and my own knowledge of basic statistics, a difference in one out of every five patients would be considered significant and relevant. …