Tom Curb, R.Ph.

I just read a thought-provoking item by our articulate, congenial and fearless, rabble-rousing ex-Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Jim Hightower. Because the subject concerned Mad Cow Disease, Jim was definitely in his element while voicing his support for the U.S. ban on Canadian beef imports. As a man of the people and a latter day grass roots progressive (a politician who for some reason never forgets that his obligation is to the folks back home) Jim was incensed that through a NAFTA tribunal, Canadian cattlemen were seeking (and will probably get) about $325 million in U.S. taxpayer compensation for the money they are "losing" due to the U.S. beef ban.

But, hold on, Jim – be optimistic – there might be a "pony in this room full of horse manure". For instance, some Canadians and a lot of rightfully suspicious Americans are convinced that on a suddenly motivated visit up north, President Bush cut a deal with Canada’s Prime Minister. To wit: If Canada’s government would act to cut off the flow of cheaper prescriptions from Canada to U.S. consumers, Bush would allow Canada to ship its "mad" cows and lumber into the U.S.

While the U.S. Congress (a lot closer to the electorate and feeling the U.S. beef industry and consumers’ heat) has stepped up to at least delay the U.S. side of the alleged "beef for drugs" quid pro quo, Canada’s powers that be, through its Health Minister Dosanjh, are peddling fast to hold up Canada’s end of the deal by changing Canadian health regulations. Already heading off Congressional authorization of bulk drug importation, Dosanjh also wants to throw up roadblocks to keep individual Americans from receiving their medications directly from Canadian mail-order pharmacies.

Now, Jim, just think about it - "What’s good for the goose is good for the gander." Americans who have been getting drugs from Canada have not broken any Canadian laws, and Canadian pharmacies sending them drugs have not broken any Canadian laws - otherwise there would be no need for Dosanjh to change Canada’s laws to stop the flow. Also, since American regulators have consistently interpreted U.S. law to allow direct personal importation – in fact, they have never enforced the letter of the law, and they have repeatedly publicized that they don’t intend to - it looks like a lot of American consumers might have as good as or a better "NAFTA" case against Canada than Canadian cowmen have against the U.S. – and for a whole lot bigger bucks.

Access to Canadian medications saves more than a billion dollars a year for more than a million Americans who will probably live a long time – while all during their lifetimes the drugs’cost and the international price differentials will continue to increase. Also, it is increasingly evident that the current U.S. "guvment" seems to be owned, hog-tied, and gutted by the multinational drug cartel, and the U.S. citizenry, with whom both have lost all credibility, is several years from being able to turn this crop of elected rascals out. Therefore, in today’s atmosphere of "revenge by proxy", it doesn’t seem out of reason that these American consumers might direct their frustrations at the Canadian Health Minister. And - their most immediate satisfaction might be through the "private tribunal of…(NAFTA) trade lawyers" that your article disparages.

I can’t help but believe that there is some young, aspiring "Joe Jamail" standing on a county’s courthouse steps just looking for a chance at immortality – and by calculating that "X" hundreds of dollars times "X" millions of Americans times "X" years equals many billions of dollars, suddenly realizes that he might be able to put together a huge action for disenfranchised U.S. consumers – a NAFTA suit with potential to shatter Joe’s long-standing, multi-billion dollar record. Sure would beat chasing ambulances, and I’ll bet you could sell tickets to that show!