The pharmaceutical industry isn’t going away. People aren’t just going to cease taking their medications, nor will their cease being very important uses for many of them. In the absence of the FDA to determine “approved” uses, while the industry will market those, they will also market for other uses, potentially harmful. As it currently stands there is mandatory phase testing with all engineered drugs, even with human subjects; after this is properly done and the drug is approved, the drug acquires “on-label” uses, which may or may not require scheduling. But in a zero regulation (interference) free-market, because the FDA, DEA, NIDA etc are gone, these practices can be – and will be – avoided.
Under capitalism, citizens (consumers) become lab rats. Relying on a pharmaceutical industry to run an ethical business is not a risk worth taking, and also brings to mind such winners as Vioxx, Glucophage, Phen-Phen etc. Under capitalism, risks like these are assessed against demands and profitability. Given the sheer size of the top 5 in the industry, they can stand to kill, severely maim, traumatize for life 1,000’s of people because they can afford it. Under the current system (which needs MORE regulation, in my opinion), defense for the public around the consequences of the industry taking these risks(and yes, sometimes delays cause issues too, irrelevant) is overseen by an agency, likely corrupt, that establishes legal guidelines, with criminal & civil sanctions, the FDA, and another agency that enforces those rules, the DEA. Under a free-market system, those entities would not and could not not exist, as they “interfere” with the market being able to correct itself. People rely on proper studying of medications to determine their efficacy (if they even work) and their side effects. To remove the current systems of regulation in the industry would be a public health disaster.
Another big problem – painkillers, and all currently scheduled pharmaceutical drugs of abuse. Pharmaceuticals companies, now able to sell directly to consumers (no need for doctors even, one can merely “self-diagnose”), create legions of opiate dependent individuals. Zero regulations equal zero enforcement mechanisms besides relying on the business to make an ethical decision (lol). In this scenario, consumers able to buy opiates (or adderall or valium) directly from their manufacturer, zero criminal activity has taken place. A private business is selling to an individual.
In a free-market there is no entity to schedule drugs based on their potential for abuse or addiction (FDA), and even if there was, there wouldn’t be an enforcer(DEA) to monitor individuals in violation of not using greater discretion; even then how could you support ending the war on drugs if you were to make ANYTHING related to selling of them criminal?
Yikes. Gots a bit uv a quandary theer don’cha? I have a hunch “the market” won’t be the thing that corrects (read: cures) addiction.
Or I could simply ask you: in a free-market economic system, will the pharmaceutical companies be able to sell directly to consumers? if not, 1) why not? 2) how can you call it a “free-market”?
Then I hope you understand the need for regulations.
discursivedesign 
Leave a comment