>> So you advocate a costly post-harm remediation instead of a preemptive solution provided by governmental regulations
> Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective.
This is not supported by any credible analysis I am aware of, as the cost of rectifying a problem post hoc has historically been far greater than preventing it in the first place.
> If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do.
This assertion is demonstrably wrong and could easily be categorized as insulting to people struggling with OxyContin addiction.
People with opiate addiction have access to the cheapest and strongest narcotics ever available on the street. Unfortunately they are of uneven strength and cut with horrors that make their body shut down. I would much prefer they could just buy clean drugs from the pharma companies.
> People with opiate addiction have access to the cheapest and strongest narcotics ever available on the street. Unfortunately they are of uneven strength and cut with horrors that make their body shut down. I would much prefer they could just buy clean drugs from the pharma companies.
Fair point.
This is a complex societal problem having no simple solution. Unfortunately, what you proposed:
Should allow pharma to sell drugs to the market. Allow
people to sue if they are harmed. Do not care about a
government agency preventing access to new drugs.
Is not a viable solution either. Government agencies and regulations would be needed in order to ensure pharma's do not increase drug addictiveness or otherwise engage in nefarious activities. Agencies are also an avenue for accountability in distribution, a much cheaper and effective enforcement mechanism than civil lawsuits, and can provide options for people wanting to address their addictions.
Remember, every person who dies from an overdose cannot "sue if they get harmed" as they are dead.
> Absolutely. Such solutions tend to be much cheaper and more effective.
This is not supported by any credible analysis I am aware of, as the cost of rectifying a problem post hoc has historically been far greater than preventing it in the first place.
> If we sold oxycontin over the counter we would have much less of an overdose problem than we do.
This assertion is demonstrably wrong and could easily be categorized as insulting to people struggling with OxyContin addiction.