Honestly don't really see the economic or societal argument for deregulating medicine. If you want a system where to get an fda stamp you have to prove it works but can sell whatever otherwise with no consequences until you kill someone or destroy their gallbladders (https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2024/05/fda-determines-that-t...) - well that's what we already have now so given it hasn't changed in decades, even with recent attempts to do so after all the strip mall stem cell clinics and GRAS issues and all, I don't think your opinion is that out of the mainstream.
And in terms of why aren't more sold in pharmacies - no clue what you're talking about there lol. Have you not seen the A-Z supplement whatever aisles full of all this unregulated crap? You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it.
Over the counter? No, you can't. You can buy a lot of stuff that doesn't work over the counter. But, for example, if I want a decongestant that actually works (pseudoephedrine HCl), I have to go to the pharmacy and show them my driver's license and make a record of the purchase because the government is afraid I might start a meth lab.
And that doesn't even get into all the market failures with prescription drugs. What if I have the same bacterial infection for the umpteenth time and I know that antibiotic X will fix it? Can I just walk into the drugstore and get a course of antibiotic X? Of course not. (At least, not in the US. But in Mexico, I can.)
Even if the argument is that I might be misdiagosing my symptoms (which, if it's the umpteenth time I've had the same thing, is not a very good argument), why isn't there a machine in the drugstore that can check my diagnosis? It's already been shown that expert systems can outperform human doctors for many diagnostic tasks. In a functioning market for health care, we would see that technology in wide use. But we don't, because we don't have a functioning market for health care.
and you can buy the other stuff as reagents/third party suppliers etc, for 'research' use.
Ok. (Though there is still the question of whether it actualy makes sense for the DEA to care.) How about commonly used antibiotics?
> you can buy the other stuff as reagents/third party suppliers etc, for 'research' use.
Antibiotics? Please enlighten me.
In other words, no, I can't buy anything I want unless the DEA has a problem with it. I can buy stuff that doesn't work or that I can't trust, but I can't buy antibiotics (or many other things I might want) that I can trust. Which of course concedes my point.
You keep bringing up antibiotics but it's the category of drugs with the most widespread use (animal agriculture) with one of the strongest cases for being drastically under-regulated - they stop working if things become resistent to them and we spray them everywhere like candy. Also you keep acting as if getting a prescription is some sort of actual barrier or burden for non-prescription drugs, which is particularly funny after the whole fiasco with wegovy off label prescriptions before the active ingredient was approved for obesity/launched for obesity. These are not real barriers, even when they probably should be.
To call this area "under-regulated" is not accurate: the whole food production chain in the US, with all of its dysfunctionality, is a product of decades of regulation and government interference and mismanagement. The best way to stop antibiotic use with animals is for people to stop eating meat and other products from those animals, and if anything is going to facilitate that, it's going to be the market, which is already providing plenty of products in grocery stores that are from animals raised with no antibiotics, and will provide more the more people choose to buy them, as I do.
We're not talking about rights here. You claimed, and I quote, "You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it." I am simply pointing out that that is not true. Whether it should be true as a matter of right is irrelevant to that factual question.
> you keep acting as if getting a prescription is some sort of actual barrier or burden for non-prescription drugs
Um, no, I said no such thing. Obviously having to get a prescription is not a barrier or burden for non prescription drugs. But, as you yourself have pointed out, a huge number of those non-prescription drugs, for which there is no barrier or burden, don't work. And, as you have also pointed out, routing around things like prescriptions to get, for example, antibiotics means you can't trust the product. So there are barriers and burdens in the way of getting things that do work and can be trusted. Which was my point, and which contradicts your original claim that I responded to.
The question of whether there should be all these barriers and burdens in the way of buying things that work and can be trusted is a separate question. Your argument for why there should appears to be that without such barriers more harm would be done. Of course there will always be people who make stupid choices, and giving people more freedom by removing barriers and burdens will increase that. But you are not recognizing the other side of the barriers and burdens, which is that they prevent people from making good choices, choices that could save their lives. For example, look up the harm done in preventable deaths by the FDA's slowness in permitting beta blockers.
The post you responded to that advocated a libertarian approach was saying, in effect, that, on net, the harm done by regulation is greater than the harm done by individual people making bad choices in the absence of regulation. I happen to agree. You apparently do not. But I do not see that you have given any reason to believe that the opposite is true. I certainly don't see anything in what you've posted that makes the opposite claim the slam dunk that you appear to think it is.
And when i say the prescription not being a barrier, i'm not talking about not needing a prescription to get research grade antibiotics. I'm talking about how needing a prescription to get a non-controlled drug is literally a non-issue because of rampant off label prescribing and online prescription mills.
But at the end of the day I feel like all medications should basically be handled like homeopathy products. They should be available to anyone, barring some kind of competency ruling or disagreement by the pharmacy over what they want to sell to whom, and the FDA should basically ensure that they are what they say they are on the label.
I'm glad there's skeptics out there calling BS on homeopathy but where I diverge from them is in somehow preventing it from being available. It's water, it's labeled accurately, so let people do what they're going to do. If they weren't doing this I doubt they'd be doing something more "mainstream" anyway, or complying with it. They might even be doing something even more actively harmful.
I guess I see it as a slippery slope from banning homeopathy to something much murkier where reasonable experts disagree. Real medical science can get very grey really fast and I'm not sure I trust regulatory authority figures to always make the best decisions about what to do. Better to leave it to the consumer and whichever provider they trust most.
Demand product purity, prevent health claims on the label, whatever, but I think my question is "why aren't more medications sold in American pharmacies?"