3 ms·

The article doesn't argue in favor of making drug consumption illegal. Given the success that large pharmaceutical companies have had in deceptively marketing O

The article doesn't argue in favor of making drug consumption illegal. Given the success that large pharmaceutical companies have had in deceptively marketing Oxycontin: http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ Why should the government allow them to commercialize and sell even more dangerous drugs that are not needed clinically?

mikhailt 9y ago
I think you're missing my point. I'm not talking about legalization or no legalization at all. The article is fully clear on pros and cons for them, the article just doesn't go further to explain why there is "demand" in the first place. And if the government regulates these companies, it will not stop these folks from getting it elsewhere. That's the point I'm trying to make, as long as there is demand, there will always be supply. This is pretty much a fact since the beginning of civilization. The best thing we can do is reduce the demand. These companies do not want to produce drugs that do not make them any profits, that's why so many life-saving drugs for very small market share are very expensive and barely marketed. If these companies have a cure for cancer, they're not going to make a big deal out of it because they'd be out of business. They'll look for drug treatments that ensure a lifetime use of drugs that sustain their business models.
- dontreact 9y ago
  Pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money trying to increase the demand for these drugs: marketing and sales reps. In the case of Oxycontin, it even looks like they used deceptive practices to do so: marketing the drug as effective at treating 12-24 hours of pain even when this is not the case: http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ Seems to me like something similar could happen if these companies were allowed to commercialize drugs like fentanyl and heroin, so in a sense this article is making arguments relevant to demand. However, I do agree that more should be done to try and curb the demand d for drugs. What do you think would be some good policies that could do that?

mikhailt 9y ago

I think you're missing my point. I'm not talking about legalization or no legalization at all. The article is fully clear on pros and cons for them, the article just doesn't go further to explain why there is "demand" in the first place. And if the government regulates these companies, it will not stop these folks from getting it elsewhere. That's the point I'm trying to make, as long as there is demand, there will always be supply. This is pretty much a fact since the beginning of civilization. The best thing we can do is reduce the demand. These companies do not want to produce drugs that do not make them any profits, that's why so many life-saving drugs for very small market share are very expensive and barely marketed. If these companies have a cure for cancer, they're not going to make a big deal out of it because they'd be out of business. They'll look for drug treatments that ensure a lifetime use of drugs that sustain their business models.

dontreact 9y ago
Pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money trying to increase the demand for these drugs: marketing and sales reps. In the case of Oxycontin, it even looks like they used deceptive practices to do so: marketing the drug as effective at treating 12-24 hours of pain even when this is not the case: http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ Seems to me like something similar could happen if these companies were allowed to commercialize drugs like fentanyl and heroin, so in a sense this article is making arguments relevant to demand. However, I do agree that more should be done to try and curb the demand d for drugs. What do you think would be some good policies that could do that?