You realize you're comparing government regulated businesses, functioning under the auspices of the FDA, to an underground trade run by men who habitually murder and mutilate women and children, right?
What was that anti-miscarriage drug that compounding pharmacists were recently banned from mixing at the behest of a billion dollar pharma company that somehow patented it after the fact?
I'll bet I can come up with more examples in a few hours of research. I have no love (nor trust) for the American pharmaceutical industry. The societal damage that drug patents and shady industry bullshit have done is only less dramatic than gang warfare.
The only way I see marijuana being legalized is if a major player, say Bayer, comes up with a proprietary, patented formulation that receives the FDA's sole approval. Hundreds of millions in kickbacks later, you can get it as a script at your friendly neighborhood Walgreen's for a few hundred dollars for 30 days' worth (one dose per day). With insurance you might even get that down to $75 or so if it makes it onto a formulary (it won't).
Questionable additives and god knows what pesticides will become regular components of the medication.
Palliative care using marijuana will require specialist supervision.
On and on.
No readily available, easy to produce, effective medical remedy should become yet another profit mill for corrupt American industry. That's just about inevitable with legalization unless the law expressly forbids patents of legalized recreational drugs.
My family is currently paying upwards of $500 per month in prescription drug copays so that my daughter and I can continue to live. The medication is sold for a fraction of these costs in other countries, and the manufacturers all make millions or billions in annual profits.
I'd even be okay with legalization for the exclusive benefit of selected billion dollar corporations, because at least it would mean less violence over it.
Violence is dramatic but suffering is suffering even when its legal and the topic of human interest stories and clucked tongues rather than newsflashes.
If it's legal it's got to be cheap and ubiquitous. Not a cash grab.
Death isn't suffering. Death isn't anything. That's why I hate it so much and want to stop it. I sympathize with your hatred of pharmaceutical companies, but I have trouble allowing drug cartels to continue their insane murderous bullshit because of it.
Besides, I don't think marijuana legalization should be purely medical, it should mostly be treated like alcohol and tobacco. That's how it's used currently, and I see no reason that would change if it was legalized.
Yeah, I think everyone should be able to grab a pack of joints at the local Food & Liquor or whatever. It's less harmful than nicotine and non-addictive, it makes no sense to keep it illegal.
My argument is that pharma companies engage in insane murderous bullshit as bad as any cartel, just quieter and usually slower.
You're going to see medicinal legalization way before you're going to see cartons of marijuana at Texaco, and it's going to go down like I outlined above, and it's going to be bad.
That last one is particularly relevant for me. My daughter was almost killed by a rare, barely documented drug reaction two years ago. She still has mobility issues from the damage it did to her body. And no, it wasn't simply an unfortunate surprise, it's a side effect the company knew about but didn't include in their publications until patient reporting forced them to (barely) acknowledge it.
People suffer and die every day because of bullshit business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, sometimes because they can't even access the drugs they need due to price manipulation, and other times because the poor bastards DID get the drug.
49 mutilated bodies is violent and dramatic and makes a shocking headline.
Thousands of patients disabled by flawed drugs and manipulated research data are worse.
The cartels aren't (legitimately) receiving billions in taxpayer subsidies and being officially sanctioned and receiving awards while cynically destroying lives in the name of increased profits. They're right up front about their business model.
How much suffering will indirectly result from billions in graft?
The cartels can keep on cutting off heads as far as I'm concerned until we've addressed far more powerful, far more dangerous players like GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer.
I know this is unbelievable but I kind of agree a little bit, partially, kinda with muppet on this one. Cartels killing people is real bad, but pharma companies fixing the system to allow the rampant exploitation of sick people, contributing to the deaths of millions worldwide through negligence and greed, claiming patents on your own genetics, and focusing the bulk of their nigh-infinite R&D cash on the petty problems of middle-aged men?
It's not that I prefer one over the other. They are both terrible. A solution needs to involve neither.
See, I feel the small difference you're failing to grasp here is that Big Pharma tends to do more good than harm. Mexican cartels, on the other hand, are cutting off people's fucking heads.
It doesn't excuse their behavior, but I think you're allowing your personal feelings to organize what you think the priorities of everyone else should be. Big Pharma may not be perfect little saints, but as organizations go, they're not actively massacring people for money and turf, or enslaving people to work in dangerous drug labs that will kill them within a year or two.
Oh, I don't think the two are morally equal. Big Pharma does it's evil through negligence and greed, and the responsibility for the harm they do is diffused among lawyers, accountants and executives. Cartels are fucking disgusting murder gangs.
However, doing good doesn't absolve you from doing evil. If Bill Gates stabbed a dude to death, you don't give him a pass because of the lives he's saved fighting malaria.
1) Taxpayer money being given to them is part of a broader separate issue where the Fed -- which is supposed to be a last resort for people who can't get loans from anywhere else -- has lost its spine and hands out money like Oprah hands out cars.
2) There's a legal and systematic way to defend yourself from shitty pharma companies. It's called suing for malpractice. It's a pain in the ass, but you can do it, and it's why ultimately they do want to help you, even though its for their own reasons. If you want to protect yourself from a cartel, I sure hope you've got an AK and someone to round up the gang Seven Samurai-style.
See, I feel the small difference you're failing to grasp here is that Big Pharma tends to do more good than harm. Mexican cartels, on the other hand, are cutting off people's fucking heads.
They are doing good largely through exclusive markets by contract or patent, corruption, collusion, and fraud. So yes, the side effect is that a fuckload of people get medication they need, but I'd argue that the harm they do is worse than the harm cartels do, if less dramatically concentrated, and I don't think the good that is incidentally done as they rake in billions of dollars is a good counter for that. It's not as though one requires the other.
2) There's a legal and systematic way to defend yourself from shitty pharma companies. It's called suing for malpractice. It's a pain in the ass, but you can do it, and it's why ultimately they do want to help you, even though its for their own reasons. If you want to protect yourself from a cartel, I sure hope you've got an AK and someone to round up the gang Seven Samurai-style.
They manipulate the data, the courts, and their legal liability through lobbyist legislation. Good fucking luck. I recently failed to sue a local hospital for LITERALLY IGNORING my 5 day old infant when we brought her comatose into an emergency room with severe, potentially brain-damaging jaundice. This was due largely to recent (within the last 10 years) lobbying by physicians in my state to make malpractice suits practically fucking impossible to bring to bear and limiting awards so severely (more than in any other state) that most lawyers won't even bother unless the case is a clear slam dunk (like, the kid is dead or a vegetable). And that was only going up against one hospital and a statewide trade organization. Go after any major player in the American pharmaceutical industry? May as well just pray instead.
The difference between the executive board of a modern pharmaceutical company and the inner circle of a Mexican drug cartel is that the Mexicans are up front about their sociopathy and disdain for human life in the pursuit of money and the executives are smarmy smiling liars in suits.
Oh, I don't think the two are morally equal. Big Pharma does it's evil through negligence and greed, and the responsibility for the harm they do is diffused among lawyers, accountants and executives. Cartels are fucking disgusting murder gangs.
However, doing good doesn't absolve you from doing evil. If Bill Gates stabbed a dude to death, you don't give him a pass because of the lives he's saved fighting malaria.
Sorry, not you, meant that for muppet, you just ninja'ed me there.
They are doing good largely through exclusive markets by contract or patent, corruption, collusion, and fraud. So yes, the side effect is that a fuckload of people get medication they need, but I'd argue that the harm they do is worse than the harm cartels do, if less dramatically concentrated, and I don't think the good that is incidentally done as they rake in billions of dollars is a good counter for that. It's not as though one requires the other.
So, R&D is free, now? Manufacture, shipping, all the people working for them? I know you're not so naive to think they're just going to do what they do for free, nor that you think they could. Making money is an entirely separate issue, and really doesn't cancel out a damned thing - What, because they make a dollar off the fact they make drugs that are vital for the healthcare of millions, means that effectively what they do does not provide benefit to the world by doing so? Bullshit, mate. Like I said, you're letting your personal feelings and emotions guide your thinking and your priorities, and now you're trying to argue reality into line with your personal feelings.
Sorry if I have trouble hating the same people who kept me from offing myself last winter. Like Churba said, for every 1 person who gets dicked over by pharma companies, at least 5000 are helped by them.
I'm sure at least some cartel gangers have fed a puppy once. That's a shit argument.
It's not about hate, it's about rational disdain for improper, immoral, and damaging practices. Pharma should not get a pass just because they're legitimized by government and because most often helping sick people happens to coincide with their profit motive.
That's a cop out Churba. I offered some personal examples in response to WUB and Greg arguing in sound bites (49 dead, mutilated bodies). I cited articles and examples of the sort of corruption and graft I'm talking about. Of COURSE drug companies should turn a profit. If you want to start erecting straw men then I'm not sure how to continue or whether it's worth it.
That entire post was crap. You're normally a pretty level headed guy. I'm sort of shocked.
Sorry, I've been looking to use that image for a looong time.
I'm sure at least some cartel gangers have fed a puppy once. That's a shit argument.
Hello, Muppet, I'd like you to meet the economy of scale.
I don't give them a pass because they're legitimized by the government (I hate some banks as much as I hate the cartels). I give them a pass because they've helped too many people. I can honestly only think of two people I'm close with whose life wasn't saved to some degree by pharmaceuticals.
It doesn't "coincide with their profit motive," it is the basic foundation of their business model. Pharma companies make shit that helps people. If they make shit that doesn't help people, no one will buy it. Sometimes shit goes wrong because that's how chemistry works. Not everything goes according to plan, but that doesn't make them as evil as you'd like them to be. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to bed before I hotwire a car and drive down to Hartford to make this personal.
If it were truly only that shit sometimes goes wrong with science, I'd be fine with that. That's not all that goes wrong. They hide and massage data. They stack their research. They use anti-competitive practices to protect their profits even at the expense of human lives and suffering. That shit is not OK.
I'm not arguing that we should replace Pfizer with a Mexican drug cartel, here... I'm arguing that if you're going to legalize highly addictive substances, a profit motive is probably a big conflict of interest in terms of potential societal harm. It's not as though we haven't seen that before.
...are you... are you seriously threatening me over the internet? Like, for reals?
That entire post was crap. You're normally a pretty level headed guy. I'm sort of shocked.
Then disprove it. Don't just call it crap, and run.
If it were truly only that shit sometimes goes wrong with science, I'd be fine with that. That's not all that goes wrong. They hide and massage data. They stack their research. They use anti-competitive practices to protect their profits even at the expense of human lives and suffering. That shit is not OK.
No. But it is the lesser of two evils in this case, since that is counterbalanced by the benefit they do for the world. The scale has a fair amount of weight on both ends, in their case, unlike the cartels.
I'm not arguing that we should replace Pfizer with a Mexican drug cartel, here...
No, and nobody said you were. So, no need to waste your time pursuing that line of thought.
Then disprove it. Don't just call it crap, and run.
Disprove what? You accused me of arguing against the for profit nature of the pharmaceutical industry. I didn't (but could).
You accused me of making an emotional appeal due to my personal circumstances. I didn't. I mentioned personal anecdotes as relevant examples and I also cited articles from Forbes, TED, and other reputable sources detailing the sort of corruption and graft I'm taking issue with.
You accused me of claiming that profiting from providing a service counters the good of providing the service. I did not.
What specifically did you want me to address that you feel I have not addressed?
No. But it is the lesser of two evils in this case, since that is counterbalanced by the benefit they do for the world. The scale has a fair amount of weight on both ends, in their case, unlike the cartels.
And nobody's arguing that the cartels are doing anybody any favors. I'm arguing that the systemic, widespread--and difficult to statistically aggregate--damage that corruption in the pharma industry does is arguably worse than the localized and dramatic type of damage that is generally caused by drug cartels. Sure, if you have to keep one or the other around it's pretty clear which one you morally have to choose, but there's little reason to love either except perhaps begrudgingly. We can do better than this shit.
Comments
I'll bet I can come up with more examples in a few hours of research. I have no love (nor trust) for the American pharmaceutical industry. The societal damage that drug patents and shady industry bullshit have done is only less dramatic than gang warfare.
Questionable additives and god knows what pesticides will become regular components of the medication.
Palliative care using marijuana will require specialist supervision.
On and on.
No readily available, easy to produce, effective medical remedy should become yet another profit mill for corrupt American industry. That's just about inevitable with legalization unless the law expressly forbids patents of legalized recreational drugs.
My family is currently paying upwards of $500 per month in prescription drug copays so that my daughter and I can continue to live. The medication is sold for a fraction of these costs in other countries, and the manufacturers all make millions or billions in annual profits.
Fuck drug patents.
If it's legal it's got to be cheap and ubiquitous. Not a cash grab.
Besides, I don't think marijuana legalization should be purely medical, it should mostly be treated like alcohol and tobacco. That's how it's used currently, and I see no reason that would change if it was legalized.
You're going to see medicinal legalization way before you're going to see cartons of marijuana at Texaco, and it's going to go down like I outlined above, and it's going to be bad.
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/09/big_pharmas_hidden_business_model_and_how_your_company_funds_it.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/09/doctors-dont-trust-big-pharma-research-weird-sciences-big-night/57154/
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html
That last one is particularly relevant for me. My daughter was almost killed by a rare, barely documented drug reaction two years ago. She still has mobility issues from the damage it did to her body. And no, it wasn't simply an unfortunate surprise, it's a side effect the company knew about but didn't include in their publications until patient reporting forced them to (barely) acknowledge it.
People suffer and die every day because of bullshit business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, sometimes because they can't even access the drugs they need due to price manipulation, and other times because the poor bastards DID get the drug.
Thousands of patients disabled by flawed drugs and manipulated research data are worse.
The cartels aren't (legitimately) receiving billions in taxpayer subsidies and being officially sanctioned and receiving awards while cynically destroying lives in the name of increased profits. They're right up front about their business model.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/28-1
How much suffering will indirectly result from billions in graft?
The cartels can keep on cutting off heads as far as I'm concerned until we've addressed far more powerful, far more dangerous players like GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer.
It's not that I prefer one over the other. They are both terrible. A solution needs to involve neither.
It doesn't excuse their behavior, but I think you're allowing your personal feelings to organize what you think the priorities of everyone else should be. Big Pharma may not be perfect little saints, but as organizations go, they're not actively massacring people for money and turf, or enslaving people to work in dangerous drug labs that will kill them within a year or two.
However, doing good doesn't absolve you from doing evil. If Bill Gates stabbed a dude to death, you don't give him a pass because of the lives he's saved fighting malaria.
1) Taxpayer money being given to them is part of a broader separate issue where the Fed -- which is supposed to be a last resort for people who can't get loans from anywhere else -- has lost its spine and hands out money like Oprah hands out cars.
2) There's a legal and systematic way to defend yourself from shitty pharma companies. It's called suing for malpractice. It's a pain in the ass, but you can do it, and it's why ultimately they do want to help you, even though its for their own reasons. If you want to protect yourself from a cartel, I sure hope you've got an AK and someone to round up the gang Seven Samurai-style.
It's not about hate, it's about rational disdain for improper, immoral, and damaging practices. Pharma should not get a pass just because they're legitimized by government and because most often helping sick people happens to coincide with their profit motive.
That entire post was crap. You're normally a pretty level headed guy. I'm sort of shocked.
Sorry, I've been looking to use that image for a looong time. Hello, Muppet, I'd like you to meet the economy of scale.
I don't give them a pass because they're legitimized by the government (I hate some banks as much as I hate the cartels). I give them a pass because they've helped too many people. I can honestly only think of two people I'm close with whose life wasn't saved to some degree by pharmaceuticals.
It doesn't "coincide with their profit motive," it is the basic foundation of their business model. Pharma companies make shit that helps people. If they make shit that doesn't help people, no one will buy it. Sometimes shit goes wrong because that's how chemistry works. Not everything goes according to plan, but that doesn't make them as evil as you'd like them to be. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to bed before I hotwire a car and drive down to Hartford to make this personal.
I'm not arguing that we should replace Pfizer with a Mexican drug cartel, here... I'm arguing that if you're going to legalize highly addictive substances, a profit motive is probably a big conflict of interest in terms of potential societal harm. It's not as though we haven't seen that before.
...are you... are you seriously threatening me over the internet? Like, for reals?
You accused me of making an emotional appeal due to my personal circumstances. I didn't. I mentioned personal anecdotes as relevant examples and I also cited articles from Forbes, TED, and other reputable sources detailing the sort of corruption and graft I'm taking issue with.
You accused me of claiming that profiting from providing a service counters the good of providing the service. I did not.
What specifically did you want me to address that you feel I have not addressed? And nobody's arguing that the cartels are doing anybody any favors. I'm arguing that the systemic, widespread--and difficult to statistically aggregate--damage that corruption in the pharma industry does is arguably worse than the localized and dramatic type of damage that is generally caused by drug cartels. Sure, if you have to keep one or the other around it's pretty clear which one you morally have to choose, but there's little reason to love either except perhaps begrudgingly. We can do better than this shit.