Drugs that really only harm the person who takes them if abused. Alternatively, drugs which are unproblematically sold over the counter the world over.
> Everything is available on the black market
Available versus commonly procured.
> that doesn’t mean regulations are BS, it means people are willing to risk breaking the law to avoid being tracked
It means they’re willing to break regulations to get it. We can’t impute motivation.
> how will people know when and how to avoid fatal doses
Same way they do for e.g. Tylenol.
> Why do you assume it might be either effective or safe if diluted?
I don’t. Dilution is a common (and obvious) pharmaceutical tool for increasing the distance between the therapeutic and harmful dose.
Correct, you’re right, I was speculating on alternative reasons people might avoid the doctor. We also don’t have evidence that the cost or time of a doctors visit is the reason for the existence of the black market demand, contrary to your claim above.
Of course, a huge risk for black market purchases is that they turn out to be fake and/or have unlisted harmful ingredients. It’s already happening with black market Viagra. You get what you pay for, which is people who are breaking the law, are secretive and unaccountable, and putting anything they want in those pills. Good luck with that. A co-pay and a quick Zoom call with a doc seems like a safer choice to me…
> The point is the forced choice is flawed. There wouldn’t be a market for the adulterated stuff if the medicine were OTC.
You haven’t convinced me that there’s anything wrong with the regulation. There might be, but again, the existence of a black market is not a valid reason to relax the regulation. The black market exists for guns and heroine and antibiotics and certain types of illegal porn too, not to mention crazier things like bazookas. You wouldn’t argue any of those should be less regulated just because you can buy them on the black market right? What actual reasons justify deregulating Sildenafil?
> wouldn’t argue any of those should be less regulated just because you can buy them on the black market
I’d use that as evidence there is demand. Then I’d consider the harm of looser controls. The harm balance for Viagra seems minimal, particularly given so many people take it without bothering with a prescription. If you think Viagra is in the same harm bucket as guns and heroin, then yes, it makes sense to regulate it.
Demand is not a valid reason to deregulate, that’s exactly the same argument as the existence of a black market argument. And it doesn’t have to be in a severe harm bucket as heroine to deserve deregulation, it has to be relatively safe, and not have big contraindications with others commonly used medications.
Better reasons to deregulate would be that it’s shown as safe or safer than existing OTC products, that many other countries offer it OTC, or that Viagra provides a compelling health benefit when used safely. The benefit is there for some specific cases, but quite questionable broadly speaking, given that it often gets used casually and to help men who don’t truly need it, to party when they’re drunk or whatever. The safety has been reviewed and deemed worthy of a prescription gate, and it’s not a hard gate to get through at all, the top comment exaggerated it. Maybe it’ll change and get deregulated, but I guess I don’t really even see why deregulating Viagra would be a net positive for anything other than Pfizer’s pocketbook.
> What does “merely-harmful” mean?
Drugs that really only harm the person who takes them if abused. Alternatively, drugs which are unproblematically sold over the counter the world over.
In the extreme case where someone ends up being injured or dead, friends and family are most definitely affected. There are few people this would not apply to.
Aside from that, the healthcare system takes a hit, employers do too and a thousand other little ripples spread out.
Some drugs are over-regulated and this is why I’m a fan of the middle line where some are sold at a pharmacy with no script needed and they can partially control the purchasing.
Drugs that really only harm the person who takes them if abused. Alternatively, drugs which are unproblematically sold over the counter the world over.
> Everything is available on the black market
Available versus commonly procured.
> that doesn’t mean regulations are BS, it means people are willing to risk breaking the law to avoid being tracked
It means they’re willing to break regulations to get it. We can’t impute motivation.
> how will people know when and how to avoid fatal doses
Same way they do for e.g. Tylenol.
> Why do you assume it might be either effective or safe if diluted?
I don’t. Dilution is a common (and obvious) pharmaceutical tool for increasing the distance between the therapeutic and harmful dose.