I’m failing to come up with a simple explanation of why this is: pharmaceutical companies make up a large portion of the donors to the Partnership for a Drug Free America. I came across this while reading a Volokh thread on the FDA’s medical marijuana decision and can’t ignore it. I’m generally wary of big pharmaceutical companies because of how they abuse our patent systems to keep drug prices high. They generally are self serving even in the face of public health crises. Because of that, I feel like I’m missing out on something obvious…
Can anyone come up with an explanation that’s decent?
Categories: In the News
9:12 PM | 6 comments
April 23rd, 2006 at 12:22 AM
Assuming the Partnership lobbies to keep marijuana illegal:
Big Pharma sees a market going away, not arriving. Painkilling is one of the largest markets for prescription pharmaceuticals, with new drugs yielding billions of dollars in revenue during their lifespan. Each has side effects, so a consistent research effort is made to improve over the existing drugs. Until the perfect painkiller is invented, the pharma-insurance industry will patent new compounds, sell them for $25/month copay, and charge the remainder in insurance premiums to the company who pays premiums. Plus n% profit margin.
Let’s say marijuana is legalized. Not just the active ingredient: pills already exist. But a growable, smokable, legal herb. Who makes money? Not Big Pharma…they are not built for agriculture. Odds are Monsanto/ADM make the money. And worse, the prescription painkiller might take a dip as people try marijuana to replace the prescription painkillers.
The customers stay the same, but the choices grow, and new providers arrive. It’s to the incumbents’ benefit to build barriers to entry.
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:35 AM
Yeah, I get all that… I guess I meant, an explanation that makes Pharma look benevolent or at least philanthropic?
April 23rd, 2006 at 8:32 AM
Well, their PR will say that it’s important to make the distinction between pharmaceuticals and drugs, and that only a doctor should have the ability to determine whether a person can take a medicine.
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Why would you assume there is an explanation that makes Pharma look philanthropic? They are for-profit entities. Philantrophy may or may not align with their corporate interest at certain times, but it cannot be expected.
But let’s look seriously at medical marijuana and what would have to happen before it truly became legal and treated like any other medication. It would have to undergo the same rigorous clinical trials that other medications must complete. Who is going to pay for that? This is an expensive prospect and there is not a Merck, Pfizer, et. al. behind it as of yet. Let’s say there was. Would it pass? Would the side effects be acceptable? How would we determine what standard of concentration and purity was needed? What dosage? If we want to treat it as a medication, there are whole heaps of regulation that it would need to go through. I don’t think either side really wants to get into that.
In the interest of full-disclosure, I am a libertarian who thinks marijuana should be legalized for any purpose, because I just don’t care what people smoke. But if advocates of medical marijuana want it to be treated as a medication, it should have to undergo the same testing that other medications do.
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:12 AM
I’m not assuming there is such an explanation… just asking if there is one. Sure, they’re for profit entities, but companies donate to charities even when there isn’t a direct profit motive. In this case, the profit motive seems fairly transparent, but I wanted to see if anyone had another explanation as to why so many pharma companies donate to this organization.
So far, it seems the answer is no.
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:19 PM
Is it possible that the group does education on the abuse of prescription meds as well as illegal drugs? Maybe in that case, they are doing it because they don’t want their prodcuts abused. I don’t know enough about what the Partnership does, other than PSAs I’ve seen on TV to know if that is the case.
I think most corporations who donate philanthropically try to choose causes that are non-controversial. Most Americans think “drugs are bad” so this is a place where it is easy to donate. Donations to NARAL, for example, could cause boycotts, bad press, etc.