3 ms·

Which is what I don't get, isn't there a profit motive in monopolizing or branding the PTSD/Depression sector of care, or is that high liability?

dylan604 5y ago
Can you monopolize a plant? There's multiple reason the BigPharma have figured out ways to synthesize equivalent things to naturally occurring plants, but one of the reasons is they can patent their process and ensure they can keep that strangle hold in place.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  You probably can’t monopolize a plant unless it’s GMO, patented, and much better than the competition. But it is possible to brand a plant. At the US chain grocery stores it can be hard to buy any strawberry that isn’t sold by Driscolls.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    This reminds me of utopian idealists who envisioned everyone growing their own cannabis once it was legal. What they didn't realize is that few people want to put in the effort to grow their own plants. It's so much quicker and easier just to go to a store and buy them. Another thing this reminds me of is ketamine, on which the patent expired long ago. So some profit-seeking corporation created esketamine, which is pretty much the same thing but patentable, and they got that approved for treatment of depression while cheap, generic ketamine still has to be used off-label (meaning that insurance companies won't cover that off-label treatment, while esketamine treatment for depression is covered). Something similar is being attempted with psilocybin, where some company's thought up a more efficient way of producing it and patented that, and made (or tried to make) that the only approved way of getting psilocybin. In both cases consumers aren't going to be making their own ketamine or psilocybin. They're going to have to rely on companies to sell it to them. Sure, they could theoretically grow or pick mushrooms but growing mushrooms is time and effort intensive, so it'll probably only ever be a hobby among a minority of users, and picking mushrooms can be dangerous and is also time consuming. So realistically most users will just be buying those too. My hope is that people will form cooperatives and non-profit organizations to provide these sacred and healing substances for people who need them, while making little or no profit but still keeping the process viable.
- aspaceman 5y ago
  It is illegal to grow most Apple's you buy from a grocery store. But I get what you mean. No one actually cares where their strawberries came from.
- gweinberg 5y ago
  There's such a thing as a plant patent which gives you a legal monopoly on clones of a plant you bred. It's mostly only useful for plants like apples, where the ones grown from seed tend to be awful. They might treat a fungus like a plant legally, but again it would only cover clones.
fragmede 5y ago
It’s that it (currently) doesn't scale well, not like a SaaS company can, anyway. Treatment is a bit more involved than here's some shrooms in the mail, so there's profit to be made, and quite a lot of it, just not how VC investor have been operating. They won't get out of bed for a million dollar idea. Maybe for 10.

dylan604 5y ago

Can you monopolize a plant? There's multiple reason the BigPharma have figured out ways to synthesize equivalent things to naturally occurring plants, but one of the reasons is they can patent their process and ensure they can keep that strangle hold in place.

jdavis703 5y ago
You probably can’t monopolize a plant unless it’s GMO, patented, and much better than the competition. But it is possible to brand a plant. At the US chain grocery stores it can be hard to buy any strawberry that isn’t sold by Driscolls.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  This reminds me of utopian idealists who envisioned everyone growing their own cannabis once it was legal. What they didn't realize is that few people want to put in the effort to grow their own plants. It's so much quicker and easier just to go to a store and buy them. Another thing this reminds me of is ketamine, on which the patent expired long ago. So some profit-seeking corporation created esketamine, which is pretty much the same thing but patentable, and they got that approved for treatment of depression while cheap, generic ketamine still has to be used off-label (meaning that insurance companies won't cover that off-label treatment, while esketamine treatment for depression is covered). Something similar is being attempted with psilocybin, where some company's thought up a more efficient way of producing it and patented that, and made (or tried to make) that the only approved way of getting psilocybin. In both cases consumers aren't going to be making their own ketamine or psilocybin. They're going to have to rely on companies to sell it to them. Sure, they could theoretically grow or pick mushrooms but growing mushrooms is time and effort intensive, so it'll probably only ever be a hobby among a minority of users, and picking mushrooms can be dangerous and is also time consuming. So realistically most users will just be buying those too. My hope is that people will form cooperatives and non-profit organizations to provide these sacred and healing substances for people who need them, while making little or no profit but still keeping the process viable.
aspaceman 5y ago
It is illegal to grow most Apple's you buy from a grocery store. But I get what you mean. No one actually cares where their strawberries came from.
gweinberg 5y ago
There's such a thing as a plant patent which gives you a legal monopoly on clones of a plant you bred. It's mostly only useful for plants like apples, where the ones grown from seed tend to be awful. They might treat a fungus like a plant legally, but again it would only cover clones.

fragmede 5y ago

It’s that it (currently) doesn't scale well, not like a SaaS company can, anyway. Treatment is a bit more involved than here's some shrooms in the mail, so there's profit to be made, and quite a lot of it, just not how VC investor have been operating. They won't get out of bed for a million dollar idea. Maybe for 10.