NEWS: Daily Telegraph; Ecstacy Sold Over the Counter

[johnboy]

on the patent point:
FWIK It isn't illegal to make a chemical etc that isn't patented, it just isn't commercially attractive for a pharmeceutical company to release an unpatented drug as it won't be able to keep it at a high price, as any company can make it, and will not have to pay anyone royalties.
Why is Viagra so expensive? Because Roche (I think) owns the patent, the patent is still current, and they can charge whatever the market will bear. Once the patent runs out it will allow other companies to release generic forms of the same substance, at a considerable saving for everybody.
One upshot of all of this the recent controversy surrounding Brazil's decision to not pay royalties for the AIDS drugs it needs to fight the epidemic. I haven't been following this story muchlately so I may be out of date but it was my understanding that they basically told the pharma companies to get stuffed. More power to them.
As for the media coverage of the Greens policy it's just another example of moral panic. The policy itself is essentially standard left wing public drug policy, and I applaud it.

 

[SeveredPsyche]

Thanks, johnboy. Apparently the patent for diazepam has (recently?) run out. i was talking to a friend last year who works for a small pharmaceautical company and he said they have started producing their own brand of Valium.
There are some arrangements between companies and I think they had some sort of agreement with Roche. However, Roche has since decided to stop producing it, whereas some larger companies with no such agreement are. The smaller company ramps up production, so the larger one does by a larger amount. The smaller companies really can't compete with this.
Often the cost of producing, packaging and distributing a drug is nowehere near the cost actually charged for it. I have no idea of what the cost to (legally) produce MDMA would be, but I believe it could be commercially viable.
Manufacturer -> wholesaler -> retailer
That's probably quite a few steps less than what is happening now.
I think Pfizer have the patent on Viagra.
[ 05 March 2003: Message edited by: SeveredPsyche ]

 

[mibrane]

the patent issue was something i hadn't come up against b4, and i've sought some legal advice, as aivl is currently considering a media release in support of the NSW Greens.
JB seems to have hit on the key principles - on the topic of AIDS drugs: recent decision by the World Trade Organisation, which is binding on the nations and supra-national corporations which belong to the WTO allows certain nations (at the moment i believe this is South Africa, Brazil, & Thailand) to produce and distribute many (although not all) of the available anti-retroviral & protease inhibitor medications on a not-for-profit basis.
Regarding the potential distribution, within Australia, of drugs which are currently illicit, this is some of the advice we've received so far:
"To be registered for use in Australia a drug must be sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, who applies to the TGA and the ministerial committee charged with making a recommendation to the Minister. To the best of my knowledge no drug has ever been registered by a Minister without such a recommendation from the advisory body. However once a drug is registered it may be legally prescribed for any indication. While it may be legal it may not always be deemed ethical to prescribe "off label".
There is no legislative provision for the ANY government itself to sponsor the registration of a drug.
The application to the PBAC for the subsidised supply of a drug on the PBS is again the responsibility of a pharmaceutical company - no government may apply. In fact it is rare that the State/Territory governments make submissions to the PBAC on the applications by companies - strictly speaking it is all commercial in confidence and the only time jurisdictional governments know of an impending application is when the companies tell them. The TGA and Commonwealth Minister will always say they cannot confirm or deny the existence of application for registration or subsidy. Once a subsidy is approved the subsidy will only apply for indications consistent with the indications for which it is registered.
There are the cases where drugs not registered for use in Australia can be accessed for special circumstances - eg George O'Neill's use of naltrexone in WA prior to its registration - but the TGA keep a close eye on this and may charge people for breaches of the legislation. They moved against O'Neill in 1998 to shut down his "trial"."
Other comments would seem to support the belief that once a patent has expired, any company could then seek to have that drug approved for use in a particular way in Australia, and could then produce and distribute it legally.
WHile some of the practicalities of what is suggested by The Greens needs to be fleshed out further, they should be heartily commended for their willingess to explore policy alternatives which could end the criminalisation of users, the denial of our basic human rights, systemic impverishment, discrimination; and to minimise the potential of drug-related harm.
The Greens hold representative seats at a local, capital city, state, and federal level. Their support for drug law reform will help keep the issue on the public agenda,

 

[johnnyonelove]

Originally posted by mibrane:

"To be registered for use in Australia a drug must be sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, who applies to the TGA and the ministerial committee charged with making a recommendation to the Minister. To the best of my knowledge no drug has ever been registered by a Minister without such a recommendation from the advisory body. However once a drug is registered it may be legally prescribed for any indication. While it may be legal it may not always be deemed ethical to prescribe "off label".

Does this apply to alcohol and tobacco?

 

[discurio]

i can just see it now,
"i have a big xmas party next weekend and i want to be a responsible host and cater for the druggies as well as the drinkers, can i have 10 grams of MDMA powder, same of speed, and a shitload of K?" :D

 

[BongoBongo]

Good Thread.
I am not the slightest bit political, but mark my words...the Greens will become a major political force in the future.
Umm, I'll have Two grams of Shiva Shunk cross, Four grams of Filippino olive green hash (Nothing comes close to this), one gram MDMA and large fries.
8)