What would be the effects of legalising illicit drugs on drug development?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Past and current behaviour of pharmaceutical companies indicates they are often more interested in making money than behaving in an ethical and responsible way. If illicit drugs were legalised and as easily available as alcohol and tobacco are today, what would be the impact on the development and availability of medicinal drugs to treat conditions such as cancer or Alzheimer's disease?

[GStan]

Well, if the unethical and irresponsible pharma companies do start making profits on illicit drugs, they will have alot more money to put into R&D. Hopefully some of that new R&D would be for medicinal purposes and not all just for improving the illicit drugs.

[Mark6]

Drugs which are illegal today would become much safer, because unethical and irresponsible pharma companies would have financial stake in providing a product which gets you high without killing you. You could count on your "line" to contain precise amount of cocaine, not cut with chalk nor with rat poison. There would be fewer OD's and fewer cheated users.

Also, since some illicit substances, particularly marijuana, have been shown to help with cancer (alleviate side effects of chemotherapy), I would expect to see more and better cancer drugs.

There should be no effect at all on Alzheimers research -- unless some illicit substance showed unexpected promise in that direction.

Why would you expect anything else?

[Eyeron]

A lot more people would be harmed.

[JenseitsDavon]

Most of our current recreational/illicit drugs (outside of mj, 'shrooms, etc.) has come from medical research, yes? I don't see it as creating any huge waves, but I would guess that a few companies arise with that as their primary focus. I think in the long run, though, most of the big ones will stay with medicine - people will pay far more to stay alive than to get high.

[Darth Rotor]

The consumer would probably have a lot better grasp of the potency and purity of a given dose / hit before taking it.

Someone would profit.

DR

[Praktik]

Ecstasy has proven therapeutic value. Would probably be a boon to their coffers if they could market it as such (to be used under the guidance and presence of a therapist only).

LSD has also shown promise treating alcoholism.

I would expect that there would be some benefit to Big Pharma in rendering these drugs legal.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Are you asking what would be the impact of allowing drugs for recreational use would be on medicinal ambitions of the pharmaceutical industry? As is many illicit drugs have legitimate medical usage but it is recreational usage such as with alcohol tobacco and caffeine that is legally frowned upon. Drugs such as cocaine fell out of medical usage because less addictive alternatives were possible to achieve the same medical effect. Few drugs are truly off limits to the medical fields.

Overall my (lack of research based) belief is that there would be a sharp increase in drug related activity and the related social ills followed by a steady decline over time, depending on the transparency of drug advertisment required by law. Big pharma would likely delve into certain drugs like cocaine, major hallucinogens and anything that requires heavy pharmaceutical skills to package properly. In the end I do not see a great impact on research into non-recreational medicines as there will still be money and pressure to invest in that direction completely separate from recreational drug dollars. Marijuana and other drugs that can essentially just be grown and sold would likely be adopted by the tobacco and alcohol industries, as well as lead to a number of small business interests. As I understood it the large tobacco corportions have already taken precautions against the legalization of marijuana in terms of securing trademarks to names and such, but that could be a myth that I have heard repeated a few times.

[theMark]

I'm not sure if it would have that much of an effect on drug development. Portugal legalized "soft" drugs years ago, and, IIRC, they had less problems since. Less strain on the police force and over time less drug usage, too.

Is there still research going on into "recreational" drugs? From what I gather from the newspapers, people tend to get caught with the same ones time and again. Well, except for drugs used for doping in the sports, they try and play "catch me if you can" with the inspectors...

Since prohibition has led to a rise in organized crime, I guess legalizing could deliver quite a blow to the trafficking instead. What with "fair trade" and all ;)

[Praktik]

Is there still research going on into "recreational" drugs? From what I gather from the newspapers, people tend to get caught with the same ones time and again. Well, except for drugs used for doping in the sports, they try and play "catch me if you can" with the inspectors...

More in Europe than in America, where the schedule of a drug will determine whether or not it can be researched. It took a long time to break through this red tape to get proper studies on marijuana.

As such, the Europeans are a little ahead in psychedelics research.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than R&D. A lot of the money they are spending on R&D is going into so-called 'me too' drugs where there is little enhancement of the therapeutic value over existing products. So they already appear to be shying away from developing new medicinal drugs.

IIRC, 1 in 6 people who start taking cocaine will become addicted to it within 10 years. That's over a billion people worldwide.

Why would a pharmaceutical company risk trying to develop a medicinal drug when it can make huge profits at little to no risk by making cocaine?

[The Fallen Serpent]

Why would a pharmaceutical company risk trying to develop a medicinal drug when it can make huge profits at little to no risk by making cocaine?

The same reason Big Pharma currently researches new medicinal drugs even though less beneficial but more addictive medcines yield greater profits through advertising. There is a market for both. There is a not inconsiderable profit to be made even if it is less than other endeavors. As long as there is a profit to be made there will always be someone willing to make that profit.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

As long as there is a profit to be made there will always be someone willing to make that profit.

That depends on how long it takes to make a profit.

For example, would you spend $10000 on a super-efficient boiler for a central heating system if you knew it would save you $500 after 20 years on running costs compared to a less efficient model for $8000?

[Mark6]

Market for cocaine and other mid-altering drugs is finite. Once it is saturated, it is saturated. Whereas the market for life-extending drugs is essentially infinite. Which is the reason why pharma companies make life-extending drugs in the first place, instead of fertilizer, or refrigirator coolant. Where R&D costs are minuscle in comparison.

[Mark6]

I just realized something. Ivor the Engineer seems to really, really dislike "unethical and irresponsible pharma companies". He had repeatedly said that profit motive has no place in medicine. Shouldn't he be happy if these companies move out of medicine business into something else (like cocaine), and someone presumably less profit-minded and more ethical takes over it?

[Safe-Keeper]

Why would you expect anything else? Indeed. Heroine freely available over the counter in pharmacies? Or, heck, at WalMart ("as freely available as tobacco")? What could possibly go wrong?

[Mark6]

Indeed. Heroine freely available over the counter in pharmacies? Or, heck, at WalMart ("as freely available as tobacco")? What could possibly go wrong?
First, there WAS time when heroin was freely available in pharmacies. To the best of my knowledge, civilization survived. Second, OP was "What would be the impact on the development and availability of medicinal drugs?", which is a much more narrow question.

[The Fallen Serpent]

That depends on how long it takes to make a profit.

For example, would you spend $10000 on a super-efficient boiler for a central heating system if you knew it would save you $500 after 20 years on running costs compared to a less efficient model for $8000?

That depends on a number of important factors. Am I buying this boiler for a place I intend to be using for the full twenty years? Do I have the income to cover both options without greatly impacting my immediate budget? Do I plan on an upgrade in boilers before twenty years runs up? Am I buying the boiler from a family friend I'm willing to take a financial hit to support? Is one of the boilers being sold by someone attractive? By someone skilled at selling? Is the super effecient boiler effecient because it uses radioactive materials that will greatly increase my risk of cancer?

I am not saying that Big Pharma is a moral industry. I am not saying that many of the companies would refuse to jump at the chance to sell cocaine. What I am saying is that there will still be a market for legitimate medicinal research even with such a change. Today there is a market for legitimate medical research even though it is far from being the most profitable arm of these companies. Mostly it might be a good will/sense of authority thing. People are willing to buy "bad" drugs from companies that make sure to shill a few "good" drugs on occassion. This would not largely change. Junk food is certainly a dominating force in the food industry, to the point that you can buy chips and soda at "health" food stores. Still, I can buy spinach at any respectable supermarket. Cocaine being available might eliminate comparable drugs that are available today, but I dare say that there is no drug that is currently illicit that would fill the niche of vaccinations. Which as I understand it is already limited to a few companies due to low profit margins compared to other medicines.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I just realized something.

Well there has to be a first time for everything.:)

Ivor the Engineer seems to really, really dislike "unethical and irresponsible pharma companies". He had repeatedly said that profit motive has no place in medicine.

Not quite. I actually said I don't think the profit motive should be a factor in the provision of healthcare. I.e. physicians should have the conflict of interest between maximising profit and providing necessary treatment to patients.

Shouldn't he be happy if these companies move out of medicine business into something else (like cocaine), and someone presumably less profit-minded and more ethical takes over it?

Or perhaps the regulations for pharmaceutical companies could be adjusted to make them behave in a more socially responsible way? E.g., stopping direct to consumer advertising would be a start.

However, your post is off-topic and nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

[Mark6]

Frankly, I am in shock. I thought I was making a very mild joke. You interpret is as an ad hominem. Rather thin-skinned.

Actually it was not even a joke. This is a serious question -- in your opinion, would it be a good thing or not if current pharmaceutical companies move out of medicines business altogether because something more lucrative comes along? Who you think will take their place if this does happen?

[WildCat]

Frankly, I am in shock. I thought I was making a very mild joke. You interpret is as an ad hominem. Rather thin-skinned.

Actually it was not even a joke. This is a serious question -- in your opinion, would it be a good thing or not if current pharmaceutical companies move out of medicines business altogether because something more lucrative comes along? Who you think will take their place if this does happen?
You think Big Pharma is going to suddenly drop everything in favor of a generic drug with lots of competition? One they can't patent?

[Mark6]

You think Big Pharma is going to suddenly drop everything in favor of a generic drug with lots of competition? One they can't patent?
Of course not. I was speaking hypothetically -- and not very seriously.

For my serious answer to OP, see post #3.

[WildCat]

Of course not. I was speaking hypothetically -- and not very seriously.

For my serious answer to OP, see post #3.
Silly answers are much more fun...

[Ivor the Engineer]

You think Big Pharma is going to suddenly drop everything in favor of a generic drug with lots of competition? One they can't patent?

Change one molecule and they'll be able to patent it. E.g., a pharmaceutical company could develop a nano-tech version of cocaine which did not destroy the septum of users.

A problem with many medicinal pharmaceuticals is users only require a few doses before they get better and no longer need them, thus the annual market is much smaller than the total number of users would suggest. Addictive drugs do not suffer from this problem.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Many of the medicinal drugs already ARE highly addictive. If recreational drug use was suddenly acceptable many of the drugs already on the market would be in direct competition with the harder highly addictive illicit drugs. There is pressure to develop new drugs that perform with the same effectiveness without chemical addictiveness, but that pressure comes mainly from the non-recreational users, most doctors and the government. It is a big pressure but not an overwhelming pressure on the companies. The dynamic would change heavily but I feel that pressure would still exist if illicit recreational use was of drugs became legal. Perhaps government funding and doctor inspired research would have to take up the slack but I see that as a positive possibility.

[BenBurch]

A lot more people would be harmed.

The opposite.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Many of the medicinal drugs already ARE highly addictive. If recreational drug use was suddenly acceptable many of the drugs already on the market would be in direct competition with the harder highly addictive illicit drugs. There is pressure to develop new drugs that perform with the same effectiveness without chemical addictiveness, but that pressure comes mainly from the non-recreational users, most doctors and the government. It is a big pressure but not an overwhelming pressure on the companies. The dynamic would change heavily but I feel that pressure would still exist if illicit recreational use was of drugs became legal. Perhaps government funding and doctor inspired research would have to take up the slack but I see that as a positive possibility.

In this liberal new world one in six members of the government are cocaine addicts. Why would they care about funding drugs which don't satisfy their intense and immediate cravings?

Because of the huge profits from turning a billion people into addicts, big pharma will have enough money to lobby every government on earth to allow them to continue to develop products which deliver maximum shareholder value, rather than waste money on risky cancer treatment R&D which will probably turn out to be worthless.

[The Fallen Serpent]

In this liberal new world one in six members of the government are cocaine addicts. Why would they care about funding drugs which don't satisfy their intense and immediate cravings?

Because of the huge profits from turning a billion people into addicts, big pharma will have enough money to lobby every government on earth to allow them to continue to develop products which deliver maximum shareholder value, rather than waste money on risky cancer treatment R&D which will probably turn out to be worthless.

Even in this liberal new world fighting off the pressure of big pharma advertising, I doubt the entire world population would try cocaine. The effects of cocaine are very well known and are very apparent. Yes, I expect there would be an uptick in usage at first and many of those people would remain addicted. Look at how many people refuse drugs for mental illness, refuse vaccinations, refuse to drink alchohol, refuse caffeine, ect. These are all likely minorities of the population but despite the already availability of highly addictive hard medicines most of the world is not addicted to them. I would rather take a direct approach to helping drug addicts over the current system of criminalizing these people. I would much prefer the drug companies having to answer what few consumer protections we currently have in medicines than the vastly unregulated world of illicit drugs that is the rule today. Much of the social stigma would not disappear for cocaine even if it was legalized. Sure, financiers and actors will be hit a little harder but considering many jobs can fire people for using over the counter medicines at work I doubt cocaine will become the popular drug of choice for a new generation. There are just too many less dangerous ways to get really high.

[Matthew Best]

IIRC, 1 in 6 people who start taking cocaine will become addicted to it within 10 years. That's over a billion people worldwide.

That's interesting, but unsubstantiated and even if it's true, there may be other reasons beyond the addictiveness of the drug itself.

[The Painter]

As such, the Europeans are a little ahead in psychedelics research.

That explains a lot.

[Eddie Dane]

That is an interesting question.

On google Video you can find a ducu-drama called If Drugs were Legal.
I don't like the faux Sci-Fi style of the film, but it does go into this aspect.

Pharmaceutical companies would start doing R&D, looking for good recreational drugs.
They would come up with a host of new and surprising drugs. Maximum effect minimum hangover.

It could be very designer: How do you want to feel? Active? Spiritual? In love?
The niches already exist in the illegal drug market, but they are quite crude.

More people would use these drugs, but they would be less harmful then the illegal stuff.

Please note that there is a possibility for many completely new drugs.
I think Alexander Shulgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin) has developed many new ones. If big pharma allocated money to researching these, they would come up with many new marketable products.

As a marketeer, I'm excited at the idea of designing a multi media advertising campaign for a new extra-potent cocaine variant. :duck:

[paximperium]

No

[Ivor the Engineer]

No

While I appreciate your succinctness, could you elaborate on your reasoning?

[Ivor the Engineer]

That's interesting, but unsubstantiated and even if it's true, there may be other reasons beyond the addictiveness of the drug itself.

I checked and it was from a pharmacology book. I can provide a reference later if you wish to check.

[paximperium]

While I appreciate your succinctness, could you elaborate on your reasoning?
Why should it affect drug development?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why should it affect drug development?

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=opportunity+cost,+production+possibilities

[paximperium]

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=opportunity+cost,+production+possibilities
Please expand.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Please expand.

If a pharmaceutical company uses its resources to develop recreational drugs, it has fewer to put into the development of medicinal drugs.

If the company grows in size and so has more resources to put into drug development, they will be put into recreational drugs until the return on investment (ROI) is less than that from developing medicinal drugs.

How do medicinal drugs compare with recreational drugs on ROI?

[paximperium]

If a pharmaceutical company uses its resources to develop recreational drugs, it has fewer to put into the development of medicinal drugs.

If the company grows in size and so has more resources to put into drug development, they will be put into recreational drugs until the return on investment (ROI) is less than that from developing medicinal drugs.

How do medicinal drugs compare with recreational drugs on ROI?
Since the cost of legalized "recreational drugs" is currently unknown, the answer is "don't know".

[Eddie Dane]

That explains a lot.

We're, like, on a higher plane. Man.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Since the cost of legalized "recreational drugs" is currently unknown, the answer is "don't know".

Section 2.3 of this report (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/tobac-tabac/evaluation-risks-risques/industry-industrie2-eng.php) has a breakdown of the manufacturing costs of a carton of 200 cigarettes, coming in at $5.70 before profit. The wholesale price of a carton of cigarettes in Canada is $53, of which $43 is tax.

[Matthew Best]

I checked and it was from a pharmacology book. I can provide a reference later if you wish to check.

I would be interested in knowing how they arrived at their figures ("1 in 6 people who start taking cocaine will become addicted to it within 10 years"). I don't have any authoritative references to dispute it, but it does not jibe with my experience. I know loads of people who have taken or do take cocaine, and nobody who I would consider "addicted" to it.

There is also the question of how you then go from that (which may or may not be true) to "That's over a billion people worldwide" - which seems to assume that everybody on the entire planet will start taking cocaine if it is legal to do so.

And your worry that "In this liberal new world one in six members of the government are cocaine addicts" suffers the same problem.

[paximperium]

Section 2.3 of this report (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/tobac-tabac/evaluation-risks-risques/industry-industrie2-eng.php) has a breakdown of the manufacturing costs of a carton of 200 cigarettes, coming in at $5.70 before profit. The wholesale price of a carton of cigarettes in Canada is $53, of which $43 is tax.
Uh huh...and?

[The Fallen Serpent]

So legalizing recreational drugs should come with high taxes. As I understood it most such serious proposals do include a high tax rate on such substances.

I do not disagree with dynamic of medical drug research would change by at least some meaningful degree. I do not see this as a bad thing. I think it would be nice if the brunt of medical research was funded by taxes funnelled through research doctor led medical associations competing for said funding. I doubt I will see that in the near future however.

Ultimately, I think the biggest most profitable drugs will not be the most addictive ones. Marijuana I believe would be a dominate force. Cocaine, opiates, methamphetamines and such I believe would all be niche markets. As they are now.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Uh huh...and?

What's the mark-up on, say, a pack of generic acetaminophen?

Do you think the development of orphan drugs would benefit or suffer if recreational drugs became a source of revenue for pharmaceutical companies?

How has the introduction of Viagra (and similar drugs) affected research into more important* drugs?




*I realise 'important' is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Ultimately, I think the biggest most profitable drugs will not be the most addictive ones.

<snip>

You consider nicotine to be a 'niche' market?

:boggled:

[The Fallen Serpent]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33539972/ns/us_news/

It appears that medicinal drugs are already a problem.

Also, if we made caffeine illegal maybe the brunt of the profits that goes into coffee and soda development would be reallocated into medicinal drugs. Maybe video game profits are hurting medicinal drug development.

I really doubt medicinal drugs will outright disappear with the legalization of illicit recreational drugs. As more and more companies leave the medicinal drug market the profitability of the industry would increase as supply decreases. Tempting other companies into the fold. Leading to a decreased profits from competition and increasing supply. The cycle renews. There will always be a market for medicine. Just as there is always a market for water despite how profitable sodas are. Sure, the market may shift to a public interest set up out of the private profit sector such as largely as happened with my water example, but again I do not see that as inherently bad.

Recreational drug use is not a direct replacement for all elements of medicinal drug use. People will still want to reduce symptons and cure disease in themselves. They will be willing to pay for that. Doctors and nurses will still want to get paid for doing that.

[paximperium]

What's the mark-up on, say, a pack of generic acetaminophen? Not sure. Most generics are sold about $2-5 above cost but many pharmacies mark it up significantly. I believe generic metoprolol cost $6 for a months supply to make but are sold for $20 by wal-mart but up to $60 by other pharmacies.

Do you think the development of orphan drugs would benefit or suffer if recreational drugs became a source of revenue for pharmaceutical companies? Neither since orphan drugs are funded by government dollars anyway.

How has the introduction of Viagra (and similar drugs) affected research into more important* drugs? Likely minimal. Drug companies like to produce drugs for chronic illnesses like cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes. I doubt they stopped doing that with viagra. However, due to the market in general, research into less profitable drugs like antibiotics are already suffering even without viagra's involvement.

[The Fallen Serpent]

You consider nicotine to be a 'niche' market?

:boggled:

No I do not. I know that the addictiveness is part of what makes it so profitable. Also, I was under the impression that it was more of a middle ground chemical addictive rather than a high end addictive like cocaine. I could be wrong here. Still, tobacco usage is generally on the decline in terms of smoking rates in the US and Europe. It is on the rise in China and other emerging markets. No matter how well marketed cocaine is I highly doubt peole will come to think of cocaine as anywhere near in the ballpark nicotine. Knowldge more than prohibition is what is being effective in reducing nicotine usage. Sure laws against public smoking are assisting the decline but it is by large the social stigma that is accounting for the general decline. That is purely my opinion though.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Neither since orphan drugs are funded by government dollars anyway.

Would there not be more diseases given orphan status because it would not be economic for pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments for them?

Likely minimal. Drug companies like to produce drugs for chronic illnesses like cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes. I doubt they stopped doing that with viagra. However, due to the market in general, research into less profitable drugs like antibiotics are already suffering even without viagra's involvement.

I would be surprised if the impact of pharmaceutical companies being allowed to make and market addictive recreational drugs on the economics of drug development did not make it uneconomic to bother developing many medicinal drugs.

[paximperium]

Would there not be more diseases given orphan status because it would not be economic for pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments for them? I think you're mistaking what Orphan Drugs/Diseases are. These are for very rare diseases. What may happen is that governments may be forced to provide more incentive for drug companies to develop drugs for less profitable drus...which is already happening.


I would be surprised if the impact of pharmaceutical companies being allowed to make and market addictive recreational drugs on the economics of drug development did not make it uneconomic to bother developing many medicinal drugs. I somehow doubt it. An expanded market usually means a larger market which means more profit and more R&D. What was once money that goes to drug makers on the street, now goes into the pocket of Pharma. The development of new Rec Drugs does not mean less profit in Medicinal drugs either.

In fact, unless the stigma against Rec Drugs vanish overnight, most drug companies will not likely want to be associated with it. What they may do is create subsidiaries but it is more likely that new companies with new capital will be formed with the opening of a new market.