PHARMACUETICAL IMPACT OF LEGALIZING DRUGS

[MarkS]

This is just a notional post about the impact of legalizing drugs with a twist. We all know our host, and he is not alone in his opinion, would like to see drugs legalized.

I am of the opinion that we have enough problems with tobacco and alcohol. While I agree that the fiscal costs of these drugs pale in comparison to the drug war, my concern is the societal impact that legalizing more drugs would have. However, that's not the subject of this thread.

What do we think the impact the legalization of drugs such as cocaine, meth, and mary-jo-wonda would have on the pharmacuetical industry.

Would we need a prescription or would they be sold over-the-counter?

Would they only be available at pharmacies or could you get them at the quickie mart too (i.e., designated sales areas even though no prescriptions are required)?

Would companies sell meth kits on-line so you can make it at home? Would subdivision covenants pop-up that discourage homeowners from making drugs at home?

I think if drugs were legalized it would be in such a way to maximize tax revenues off the sales of the products.

Just some food for thought to go along with your purple haze.

[penguin]

MarkS said:

Would we need a prescription or would they be sold over-the-counter?

Would they only be available at pharmacies or could you get them at the quickie mart too (i.e., designated sales areas even though no prescriptions are required)?

Would companies sell meth kits on-line so you can make it at home? Would subdivision covenants pop-up that discourage homeowners from making drugs at home?
.

Good questions. My assumption has always been if the drug is purely recreational, it would be handled in much the same way as alcohol -- sales restricted to adults at licensed retail establishments. The details would be at the discretion of the states, and the people, respectively.

If drugs were legal, I don't suspect there'd be any need for meth, since safer, affordable alternatives would be available at retail. But, I think that local laws prohibiting manufacturing or dangerous activities would apply to home labs, if such a thing existed.

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

Good questions. My assumption has always been if the drug is purely recreational, it would be handled in much the same way as alcohol -- sales restricted to adults at licensed retail establishments. The details would be at the discretion of the states, and the people, respectively.

If drugs were legal, I don't suspect there'd be any need for meth, since safer, affordable alternatives would be available at retail. But, I think that local laws prohibiting manufacturing or dangerous activities would apply to home labs, if such a thing existed.

That's basically what I was thinking, too. But in analyzing his question, some other complications presented themselves.

What about currently restricted, but legal, drugs like Oxycontin, morphine, valuum, adavant, methodone, etc? Wouldn't we have to make those semi-legal opiates free to recreational users, too?

- Rick

PS - Great post, Mark! I like it when people make me think...

[penguin]

RS said:

What about currently restricted, but legal, drugs like Oxycontin, morphine, valuum, adavant, methodone, etc? Wouldn't we have to make those semi-legal opiates free to recreational users, too?

That's a different part of the bigger question, I guess. I think that a prescription should be a recommendation, rather than a legal requirement. A pharmacist should be permitted to restrict dispensation of drugs to those with written orders from doctors, but not required to do so. By the same token, people should be free to (and in most cases be wise to) seek professional advice on medication, but shouldn't be prohibited from buying medicine just because they can't get a doctor to dispense it.

The only exception I can think of would be antibiotics, since overuse of these medicines affects their efficacy for everyone.

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

That's a different part of the bigger question, I guess. I think that a prescription should be a recommendation, rather than a legal requirement. A pharmacist should be permitted to restrict dispensation of drugs to those with written orders from doctors, but not required to do so. By the same token, people should be free to (and in most cases be wise to) seek professional advice on medication, but shouldn't be prohibited from buying medicine just because they can't get a doctor to dispense it.

The only exception I can think of would be antibiotics, since overuse of these medicines affects their efficacy for everyone.

I agree, but still, if someone wants to be irresponsible and overuse antibiotics, I guess that is their choice, isn't it?

- Rick

[MarkS]

penguin said:

Good questions. My assumption has always been if the drug is purely recreational, it would be handled in much the same way as alcohol -- sales restricted to adults at licensed retail establishments. The details would be at the discretion of the states, and the people, respectively.

If drugs were legal, I don't suspect there'd be any need for meth, since safer, affordable alternatives would be available at retail. But, I think that local laws prohibiting manufacturing or dangerous activities would apply to home labs, if such a thing existed.

That certainly makes sense. Because of the potency of the drugs, I hadn't thought the solution would be so simple. One thing's for sure, the PACs will be scrambling over each other to try to ensure that their industry get's to sell the product.

Now... just what will the TV ads looks like? I suppose if you're already high and it's a bad trip, probably like something out of The Ring. Damn, that was a scary movie.

[RS Davis]

MarkS said:

That certainly makes sense. Because of the potency of the drugs, I hadn't thought the solution would be so simple. One thing's for sure, the PACs will be scrambling over each other to try to ensure that their industry get's to sell the product.

Now... just what will the TV ads looks like? I suppose if you're already high and it's a bad trip, probably like something out of The Ring. Damn, that was a scary movie.

I remember tripping really badly in college, when my girlfriend at the time forced me to watch Fantasia, saying over and over, "This was before computer animation - they drew each cell by hand!" I didn't care - I just knew that Satan would be in it soon, and I needed to figure a way out...

- Rick

[outgirl]

RS said:

I agree, but still, if someone wants to be irresponsible and overuse antibiotics, I guess that is their choice, isn't it?

- Rick

No. The over use of antibiotics causes superinfection. It makes us (humans) immune to that antibiotic. Now we have a lot of things that are resistant to various antibiotics. They cause increased morbidity, longer length of hospitalizations and eventually increased insuance premiums.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

No. The over use of antibiotics causes superinfection. It makes us (humans) immune to that antibiotic. Now we have a lot of things that are resistant to various antibiotics. They cause increased morbidity, longer length of hospitalizations and eventually increased insuance premiums.

I understand that it is a bad thing, but it is still their choice.

- Rick

[penguin]

RS said:

I understand that it is a bad thing, but it is still their choice.

- Rick

I think the issue is the proverbial "right to swing your fist stops at my face." Overuse of antibiotics don't just make them less effective for the abusers, but for everyone. I have the right to burn down my own house, but when the embers ignite yours, it becomes your business.

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

Overuse of antibiotics don't just make them less effective for the abusers, but for everyone.

Really? How so?

- Rick

[penguin]

RS said:

Really? How so?

- Rick

Natural selection.

[RS Davis]

penguin said:

Natural selection.

I'm sorry - I don't follow.

- Rick

[penguin]

RS said:

I'm sorry - I don't follow.

- Rick

I meant, natural selection, Darwin-style.

Antibiotics kill bacteria, but not always all of them. Some mutated bacteria have genetic qualities that make them less susceptibel or immune to an antibiotic altogether. These mutated bacteria survive and multiply, passing the anitbiotic-resistant trait on. It's becoming a pretty serious issue in the health-care industry, as many antibiotic resistant strains of such things as Streptococcus, which can be fatal, are proliferating.

Thus, I think there is a legitimate public health reason to restrict antibiotic use to those who legitimately need them. And, since there's no real "recreational" use for them anyway, no one's quality of life would be negatively affected by making sure they're not used indiscriminately.

[whatever]

penguin said:

I meant, natural selection, Darwin-style.

Antibiotics kill bacteria, but not always all of them. Some mutated bacteria have genetic qualities that make them less susceptibel or immune to an antibiotic altogether. These mutated bacteria survive and multiply, passing the anitbiotic-resistant trait on. It's becoming a pretty serious issue in the health-care industry, as many antibiotic resistant strains of such things as Streptococcus, which can be fatal, are proliferating.

Thus, I think there is a legitimate public health reason to restrict antibiotic use to those who legitimately need them. And, since there's no real "recreational" use for them anyway, no one's quality of life would be negatively affected by making sure they're not used indiscriminately.

I don't argue the dangers of super bugs. If I understand you correctly then, we shouldn't change the current law for those types of drugs? I'm not sure if it's just antibiotics or not. I imagine the penalties aren't as harsh, but don't really know.

I'm watching Bush on tv. Bush is not doing well in this Press conf. It's quite interesting.