Who loses when pharmaceutical companies gain a monopoly through drug patents? Let’s break it

Regarding “Thank drug patents for life-saving breakthroughs. Why loosening the law will stifle innovation” (Open Forum, SFChronicle.com, August 16): That old drug industry scaremongering is out of date: Don't limit their patent profits or they won't be able to innovate. Nonsense.

Most blockbuster drugs are funded in part or in full by our tax dollars in the form of federal grants or directly by government research, such as that carried out by the National Institutes of Health. Only then are they handed over to private companies to complete them and make a profit.

Many drug companies' annual reports show that more money is spent on legalized bribery – lobbying, sales and marketing – than on research and development. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration relaxed regulations on direct-to-consumer “Ask Your Doctor”-type advertising, drug companies' advertising budgets have exploded.

To outsmart the system and extend patents, companies make tiny changes to a drug, such as giving it an “extended release” formula.

A patent on a drug is a temporary monopoly. To exercise this power, we need a purchasing monopsony. The USA is the only major industrial country that does not allow the government to be the sole payer of prescription drugs and to negotiate prices. We are the stupid ones.

Brian Klein, San Francisco

As an active board member of a homeowners association in California, I am writing this letter to express my deep concerns about the Corporate Transparency Act and its potential impact on homeowners associations.

While the law aims to increase transparency in corporate structures, its application to associations leads to unnecessary burdens for voluntary board members.

Civic associations are the backbone of our neighborhoods, fostering a sense of community and ensuring the well-being of residents. However, the Corporate Transparency Act threatens to stifle vital volunteerism by adding additional bureaucratic hurdles and penalties for noncompliance.

Board members of community associations already devote a great deal of time and effort to community affairs. They should not face fines or imprisonment simply for their volunteer work. The law's strict requirements could deter future volunteers and jeopardize the effective management and sustainability of our communities.

To protect the vitality of California's civic associations, I urge lawmakers to exempt associations from the Corporate Transparency Act.

Let us ensure that our communities continue to thrive under the dedicated leadership of volunteer homeowners who are committed to the cause and are not unduly burdened by the constant repetition of unnecessary regulations.

Robert Spillar, President, Orange County Regional Chapter, Community Associations Institute

The US Postal Service is in crisis: service is poor, prices are exploding and large amounts of revenue are being lost. In the last fiscal year, the service suffered a loss of 6.5 billion dollars.

The Postal Service expects to lose the same amount of revenue this year. That's bad news for rural America, for small businesses and charities, and for the many millions of Americans who rely on the postal service every day.

This unhealthy mix of skyrocketing prices, declining mail volumes and growing financial losses threatens the long-term survival of the postal service.

To preserve a reliable and affordable postal system for all, Congress must act. Options include strategically investing pension funds, limiting fare increases, clawbacking overpayments to certain pension funds, strengthening regulatory oversight, and confirming new postal governors — a mix of solutions that can be found without resorting to a taxpayer bailout.

We call on Congress to take action. The future of America's postal system is at stake.

Art Sackler, Executive Director of the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service

Regarding “US may soon declare alcohol unsafe; wine industry claims process is rigged” (Wine, Beer & Spirits, SFChronicle.com, August 13): Esther Mobley's informative article misses an important point in the alcohol safety debate: People who claim there is “no safe amount” of alcohol consumption should also recognize that there is no safe amount for many everyday activities, such as driving or even breathing in some communities.

Moderate consumption is best.

Patrick Frank, Los Angeles