I believe you’ll find my previous response covered that. I’ll state it again.
Clearly, I’m saying that, if the cost of business for selling a product that harms its user when used as intended drives the cost of the product up because it reflects the cost of rehab, then that’s where the money comes from. It’s not my problem if the seller cannot cope.
And my point is: the seller’s only source of money in this math is from the buyer. The seller isn’t going to reduce their profits. They’re going to pass the operating cost increase on to their customers.
Just like always. Alcohol’s intended use harms the user. Tobacco? Same. Different societies have tried penalizing the producers. Prices went up. That’s it. That’s all that will ever happen.
I’m never denied that the cost won’t be transferred to the customer, it’s how it’s done that matters. One way is honest, the other is not. Why is this a problem?
The service providers offering medical assistance are not the same as the vendors making the product available. As a result, there is no extra cost being passed on to the consumer from the drug production end beyond what the consumer is willing to pay.
There is a fee for medical services rendered, as no private company will likely be able to remain solvent doing such things pro-bono, but this is the case for any treatment, be it for infection, trauma, or indeed, addiction.
So basically there’s a whole lot of, “Those evil drug dealers selling legal boosters on the SCC market in Intaki to capsuleers,” But not much, “Hey who made them legal and why?”
If they can only be sold to capsuleers, then I think capsuleers can determine for themselves what they want to purchase on the open market and what’s available for sale.
People are worried about capsuleers buying drugs which might harm only themselves, but hey those combat vessels, weapons, and ammunition that might actually kill people are a lot less worse than pharmaceutical pursuits I guess.
Let’s look at what you said:
There’s 2 products. Let’s call the first one ‘Drug’ and the second ‘Rehab’. Let’s keep the math simple and assume a 100% rate of addiction. It costs 100 Quatloos/month to make Drug for a given market. It costs 100 more to provide rehab for that same market.
In this framework, it’s 200 Quatloos for the whole market every month. If the company is telling people ‘Drug costs 200/mo’ you’re ok with that. If it markets the two products separately, you’re not.
Now what happens if 2 different companies are involved?
Company A sells Drug for 200/mo. It provides free rehab. It does what you want.
Company B sells Drug for 100/mo. It charges 100/mo for rehab. It does what you don’t like.
Which company are customers going to buy Drug from? Which one are they going to get rehab from?
How long is the company you like going to survive while the company you dislike makes a lot of money because it doesn’t have to pay for rehab nobody’s using. Medical supplies nobody’s using don’t get used up, so they don’t need to be replaced. Staff can be downsized. Facilities can be mothballed.
And once the competition goes out of business, they can crank up the price of Drug, because there’s nobody to take their business away. So what, exactly, is the incentive for companies to build all of the costs for multiple products into one of those products? How is that not fiscal suicide?
Making them illegal doesn’t do anything about demand. It only ensures that no-one will report shoddy producers, or (extra-)dangerous products. Criminalizing basically amounts to price supports. It’s a bad idea.
I don’t disagree, but the thing is, the drugs and boosters made available for legal sale on the SCC are going to be bought by capsuleers. Do you think your average baseliner is able to shell out the few million ISK for a standard booster shot? A lifetime of wages for a single shot? It’s ludicrous to me to involve your average Intaki citizen in this discussion because a) they’d somehow have to have SCC market access b) they’d have to be ludicrously wealthy
The average citizen is both paywalled and would find it legally difficult to actually buy any boosters on a citadel freeport in the first place.
So really, I don’t see what the fuss is about beyond bored eggers trying to find a cause to play the White Knight over.
Who says that either company be allowed a choice in this matter? All sellers, who are selling this particular drug have to fund the cost of rehab up front. It’s this laissez faire libertarian caricature, that so many people think of as Capitalism these days, that makes us think that protecting the general public from corporate predation is some sort of evil.
You’re also basing your argument on the idea that a company that is dishonest about the up front price will be honest about the rehab price. I mean, I don’t know. Maybe the company will be, but how often do companies gouge their customers at every opportunity.
Hey, here’s a scenario. The company B charges as much company A AND 100 jimjums/mo for rehab too? Did you think of that? Do you think people in need are going not going to spend the money if they’re desperate? Maybe the market will right itself in time, but NOT before a lot of people are hurt. We could go back and forth with examples and counter examples, but I think I’ve demonstrated that there are other possibilities to consider.
My point is that in situations like this, and I honestly don’t care that they selling the drug, is that some form of regulation is required so that honest costs are being presented. If that means on the rehab end as well, so be it.
Ms. Gesakaarin is correct in her assessment that by and large, the purity level required of combat boosters makes them prohibitively expensive for all but the most obscenely weathly baseliner population.
Although we are aware of several entities that sell cut product, they have been required by mutual agreement and the teeth of station management security to indicate that their product is for recreational use, and not comparable to combat boosters. Before I became who I am today, I used to use this same sort of product, as well as sell it personally to make ends meet. I am aware of what dishonest business can do. There is only one mutually enforced regulation in the Intaki Freeport, and that is that the NAP is adhered to, which is upheld on trust and honesty in action and word.
I have never held anyone else responsible for my poor life choices, especially because they were fun as hell. I was in line to be biomassed when an altruistic soul saw something in me that I certainly didn’t, and recommended me for the capsuleer experiment. Perhaps I squander his generosity by taking full strength hits for fun now. There’s always a new clone.
But for those without, we have eliminated the entrapment by inviting on-site medical services to provide treatment for whatever cost they feel appropriate. If there is demand, they will continue to offer it. If they find the consumers do not desire these services, they will no longer offer them. We at 4FUNN will not interfere either way, except to ensure that the agents of the Serpentis Corporation abide by the stipulations of free operation within the Freeport.
The majority of our concern over this “Prosperity” is not due to the sale of legal drugs, but rather the entrenchment of an organization who has done nothing but employ bully tactics against legitimate businesses for the last few years.
Yet where is your legitimacy as it concerns what is or is not the legitimate business of other capsuleers?
Because as far as I can see like any independent capsuleer organization, legitimacy begins and ends with the point of a gun to establish and maintain self-interest so functionally you’re no different than those you seek to decry.
I’m afraid that is a question for someone else. All I can tell you from my standpoint is several groups have had enough with their view legitimate business practices.
Sure, so they infringe on what your groups view as their own self-interests which is about as good a reason as any.
I don’t get why the rhetoric over drug sales as some kind of crisis to be resolved was even required, because as I pointed out, the drugs potentially on sale are going to be made available to capsuleers, not school kids on the street corner.
So the Federation is going to audit the books of a corporation based outside the Federation? Sure. That’ll work. Especially one based well outside of empire space entirely. Oh, wait, the company doing business in the Federation just bought those drugs for resale? Huh. Well, I guess the pricing is totally accurate, right? Same group doesn’t control both companies and is jacking the price up long before it gets near the Federation’s regulators, right?
Yeah. Good luck with that.
The subject has become an issue due to the Serpentis Mercantile corporation delivering drug supply drops to Intaki V. I’m sure if you were to fly there, you would see one such delivery take place. These are groups that 4FUNN have aligned themselves with.
Internal Watch Pilots have raided their orbital warehouse several times this week, and seized quantities of drugs destined for the surface.
I never said that regulating wouldn’t be problematic. It may prove, as you seem to indicate, impossible. Though I accept your conceding my other point at least.
It was interesting though. Thanks for keeping it real!
Given previous statements by 4FUNN such as:
They seem more concerned with operating a freeport solely, and not acting as a local security force as it regards Serpentis Mercantile. Essentially you are attacking 4FUNN for not acting against Serpentis Mercantile when their organization gains nothing materially themselves by doing so.
Incorrect, you will have to forgive the presumptions of Mr. Mazaki’s. His station hasn’t afforded him the full scope of our effort in the Intaki system, but rather a small, yet still important portion.
Our intent was never to destroy the facility in orbit of the Intaki home world, rather it was an effort to force the group to the negotiating table in an attempt to establish a respectable competitive atmosphere. These terms were simple (As shown below), but as I expected they were discarded and countered with unreasonable ones.
I-RED will respect your Intaki Prosperity initiative as acting competitors, provided the Intaki Prosperity initiative is done in a respectful manner.
- Harrassing comments and/or actions against the Intaki Liberation Front [ILF] will cease.
- I-RED will cease in harrassing comments and/or actions against your initiative within Intaki.
This was a unpopular, heavy handed approach, and miscalculated as necessary. As we have found with past interactions that this group in particular doesn’t respond well to a more diplomatic approach. Nevertheless with everything that has transpired we will simply be forced to make this market endeavor of theirs unfeasible.
Before you take this the wrong way Ms. Hikare, no this is not some subtle apology as you demanded and no we will not be refunding the four billion isk lost by you and your allies.
You could have just come out with it being a matter of competing interests in the first place instead of promoting a narrative with holes big enough to drive a Titan through, you know?
Conveniently, you have omitted my reply, in which I prefaced my counter-demand with the fact that we had already been in a state where statement (1) was being followed, and aggression was initiated without any proof obtained that such was not the case. The idea that it was done to bring 4FUNN to the negotiation table is farcical - demands are first given, then force used if they are not accepted. I-RED chose to simply initiate force without explanation beyond “You are evil because we say you are.”
We cannot concede the first point, because it was the state of affairs before our installation was attacked. Simply engaging ILF pilots in low-security space because they are competitors and political opponents is not ‘harassment’, and neither is poking light fun at ILF piloting habits. No personal attacks have been made since the anchoring of the Engineering Complex - and, in fact, I personally spoke to Bataav about the matter at its inception. Ask him. @Bataav
The condemnation of our activities thus stems from jumping to conclusions, and in this regard Ishuk-Raata’s attempt at diplomacy is merely a screen to lend legitimacy to their aggressions, which should never have been initiated in the first place, by virtue of your own demands for détente.
That is why we feel justified in demanding an apology and renumeration of losses, because we were attacked on false pretexts stemming from a prejudiced view of our activities.
And of course, we remain committed to defending our investments and clients, so understandably, if I-RED and their hypocritically unsavory allies continue their assault, we stand ready to defend them.
