[derbOac]

I might be downvoted for this, but I tend to have a kind of libertarian take on this. I absolutely do not believe in homeopathy beyond placebo effects, and I understand the harm they do by opportunity costs in pursuing other treatments.

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?"

[vikramkr]

its not about banning availability, its about making them required to prove the health claims theyre making. If you didn't have any requirements to prove your drug worked before selling it, youd take away a pretty huge market incentive to make drugs that work (health is about as far from a perfect full information free market as you can get -- homeopathy doesn't work at all and those companies are making plenty of money). These regulations also force research into and labeling of side effects, and skimping on that led to an opiod crisis.

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.

[pdonis]

> 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.

[vikramkr]

pseudoephedrine - you can't buy that because the DEA has a problem with it lol.

and you can buy the other stuff as reagents/third party suppliers etc, for 'research' use.

[pdonis]

> pseudoephedrine - you can't buy that because the DEA has a problem with it lol

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.

[vikramkr]

for cell culture lol it's not hard to find them, even though arguably it should be because of resistance. Also this isn't advice to take them - they aren't regulated and so you shouldn't trust them lol they're for research use only for a reason

[pdonis]

> this isn't advice to take them - they aren't regulated and so you shouldn't trust them lol they're for research use only for a reason

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.