You could also look at it in a different way: for most users and underground researchers it would not make that much of a difference, because they're already breaking the law anyway.
(And for researchers there is probably an analogue substance available for practically every existing psychedelic substance, and patenting them all would be impractible because you'd have to research them all).
In terms of PR however, it would be a big loss for the war on drugs. Because first everybody's being told that these drugs are evil and make you crazy, and that this is the reason why they should be banned. But now all of a sudden, these very same substances have such high therapeutic value, and the use should be prohibited because of patent rights.
The argument "to protect our childeren" is effective because it uses fear and love. Two powerfull emotions.
The argument "to protect our patents" is not, because people do not identify themselves with pharmaceutical companies.
It is a losing strategy, in the long run.
(And for researchers there is probably an analogue substance available for practically every existing psychedelic substance, and patenting them all would be impractible because you'd have to research them all).
In terms of PR however, it would be a big loss for the war on drugs. Because first everybody's being told that these drugs are evil and make you crazy, and that this is the reason why they should be banned. But now all of a sudden, these very same substances have such high therapeutic value, and the use should be prohibited because of patent rights.
The argument "to protect our childeren" is effective because it uses fear and love. Two powerfull emotions.
The argument "to protect our patents" is not, because people do not identify themselves with pharmaceutical companies.
It is a losing strategy, in the long run.