Do pharmaceutical companies knowingly benefit from drug abuse markets?

[PureLife]

I think some of you guys have serious issues. Just because YOU abuse prescription drugs, doesn't mean everyone does. Many people need these narcotic medications on a daily basis to even get out of bed. Not because they are addicted, but because the pain is unbearable. Most of the narcotic medications mentioned in this thread were first synthesized many, many years ago. At the time they were considered a breakthrough in medicine. Despite all the money being made with these drugs, its helping A LOT of people. If people abuse these drugs, then so be it. Its basically out of the pharm companies hands when people abuse their narcotic medicines. They obviously know about it, seeing all the anti-abuse measures they have taken. I think everyone should be more pissed off about the healthcare system( in america) than the pharm companies. Thats what is really all about money, its disgusting.

 

[gethigh]

i mean if they wanted to they could most likely develop a drug that provides only analgesia but they are to busy making millions and most likely just want to come out with another opioid they can patent and make more money on. If they had a pill that you couldn't get high on i don't think doctors would prescribe ones you could anymore.

 

[gethigh]

I don't think Big Pharma benefits from the black market at all. Most all of the pills that are on the street have been diverted from legal prescription sources, so the only people benefiting from this is the dealers. Also, the fact that these pills are desirable on the black market is an indicator that they are abusable, meaning they would not be prescribed as liberally. The big money is in the drugs that are considered non-addictive, non-habit forming but are taken every day for long periods of time. Prozac, Paxil, birth control, Concerta, that's the kind of drugs where the money is made.

people get scripts and doctor shop just to sell them.

 

[CH3CH2OH]

People on here are really paranoid. I do not think drug abuse benefits Pharm comp. because when it is discovered, Dr.s prescribe it less, patients refuse out of fear, and because of possible lawsuits. Also they do not sell the drugs for high prices just to make money. It costs an enormous amount of money to develop a successful drug, yet half of the patent time is spent on testing, leaving them only a few years on patent to recoup the costs and make some money. That is why the prices are so high, if patent were extended then the meds would be cheaper.

 

[Idi0tequ3]

what about all the other drugs that benefit our society that pharma corps make, the ones that save peoples lives? your all forgetting that these corporations dont souly profit off of opiates, And also your soposed to follow their dosages. Your the one abusing the drug, and you are choosing that for yourself. The pharma companies not only make opiates, they make methadone and suboxone to get off of them, so of course they know man.

They 're drug dealers.....i Guess you love them or hate em.

 

[Unknown]

I don't understand the point of this question. Pharmaceutical companies are ran by humans, like you and me. They don't want people to die from their product. I believe they develop products to help people, as well as make money. There are certain drugs that have addictive properties. I think they are aware that their products are abused and they do benefit financially from it. I doubt that this is the motivating factor of producing an addictive substance. I know they originally said Oxycontin was "less addictive" than other painkillers. Maybe they were full of shit, and maybe they weren't. It's really up to the doctor to monitor their patients use, and detect abuse and illicit use.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

People on here are really paranoid. I do not think drug abuse benefits Pharm comp. because when it is discovered, Dr.s prescribe it less, patients refuse out of fear, and because of possible lawsuits. Also they do not sell the drugs for high prices just to make money. It costs an enormous amount of money to develop a successful drug, yet half of the patent time is spent on testing, leaving them only a few years on patent to recoup the costs and make some money. That is why the prices are so high, if patent were extended then the meds would be cheaper.

I agree with your first point but I definitely disagree with your second. I recommend reading the work of Marcia Angel, former editor-in-chief of the new England Journal of Medicine, from her wikipedia page:

The pharmaceutical industry estimates that each new drug costs them $800 million to develop and bring to market, but Angell and Relman estimate the cost to them is actually closer to $100 million. Examples are imatinib (Gleevec), zidovudine (AZT) and erythropoietin (Epogen). An unpublished internal NIH study in February 2000 of the 5 top-selling drugs in 1995 (Zantac, Zovirax, Capoten, Vasotec, and Prozac) found that 16 of the 17 key scientific papers leading to the discovery and development came from outside industry[6]. In 2004, she published The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.

The large costs associated with medicine are not from R&D like often claimed but from a combination of R&D, large marketing costs (those incessant spots during the evening news are NOT cheap) and of course the profit motive. Below is an excerpt expounding on this point. I'd also like to point out that out of the roughly 25 new medications approved annually, very few of them are novel compounds. Most of them are of the "me-too" type where major pharma companies want a share of the market created by another company's breakthrough drug: like the statins, the SSRIs, etc.

About the profit motive: the US pharmaceutical industry is the MOST profitable in this country according to this article:

April 18, 2002

Pharmaceutical Industry Ranks As Most Profitable Industry -- Again

Drug Companies Top All Three Measures of Profits in New Fortune 500 Report

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Even as many industries suffered last year, the pharmaceutical industry – which continued hiking prices and resisting efforts to control drug prices – once again was the most profitable industry in the annual Fortune 500 list, indicating that the drug industry juggernaut shows no sign of abating, Public Citizen said today.

The pharmaceutical industry topped all three of Fortune magazine’s measures of profitability for 2001. It was a year when average prescription prices increased 10 percent, even though the government inflation rate was a mere 1.6 percent. For three decades, the industry has been at or near the top in all three of these measures.
source

In regards to the original question, I do not think that drugs are produced for their abuse-potential and like the alcohol compound poster mentioned, this is often a hindrance. In Illinois, most of the doctors I talked to in pursuit of pain relief were extremely reluctant to prescribe CII's because of potential issues with the DEA; if I understand correctly, every time I was prescribed one (MScontin or OxyContin) a letter had to be sent to the DEA. In the wake of DEA raids on pain management clinics, I think doctors are fearful of investigation and allegations of impropriety. I also feel, however that, like a previous poster mentioned, there is a huge difference between dependence and addiction and when taken as prescribed, addiction is very unlikely (for more info, look into iatrogenic addiction). Addiction to these drugs is not because the doctor prescribed them or the pharma companies created them, but because the patient decided to abuse them.

 

[Thou]

Does a bear shit in the woods?

I won't go into it much because it fills me with rage every time I think of it, but its obvious what their doing. I speak with many people who deal with the pharm industry in foriegn countries and it is in no way as exploitive as it is here in the states.


SSRI's are the next heroin, their technically not "addictive" because their not recreational, but you'll sure as shit be as dependent on them as you would any benzo or opiate, with similarly painful withdrawals (I know from experience).

Doctors, knowing this full on, hand them out like free samples of toothpick cheese at the grocery store. Once your hooked, it's too scary to come off (espiacally someone who's being treated for DEPRESSION).

It's really appalling, and really sad.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^I second that and I think that has a lot to do with the health care system as well as the pharma industry. Doctors are now trying to maximize their patient load so they only have ~15 minutes during most PCP/GP visits and they don't have enough time to fully evaluate the symptoms or educate the patient thoroughly. In these circumstances, informed consent is impossible and doctors, insurance and big pharma make bank.

 

[PillsburyDoughBoy]

why do u think they started dealing meds in the first place.

Pharmacies are just high level pill pushers with licenses