NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/29/cancer.paste.ap/index.html

Raber's paste is described by the medical board as "a caustic, tissue-destroying substance that eats away human skin and flesh." On his Web site, Raber displays graphic before-and-after photos of those who have used the paste, including women with scabs on their breasts and men with scarred faces.

This man is attempting practice medicine without a license, handing this paste out under the pretense that it will only kill cancerous cells. His son even had this to say:

"The herb does not kill healthy tissue," Kelly Raber said, smearing some of the paste on his nose. "Instead, it performs a process known as apoptosis that allows the (cancer) cells to self-destruct."

And he says it as if he is all official and can make the suggestion that apoptosis only affects cancer cells. Well, I've got news for him, unless they are sticking cancer-specific antibodies in that paste (something that hasn't been found), anything that causes apoptosis in cancer cells is generally going to cause apoptosis in *any* cells.

An Indianapolis woman who said she used products from that company and Raber's in 2001 contends in a lawsuit that her nose was eaten away, forcing her to have seven reconstructive surgeries.


But, of course, there are still people out there who will tell you that we should do away with the FDA - that if someone sells poison or a paste that kills human flesh as medicine, people should be able to buy and sell it as they please. It is, after all, a free market, right?

Bleh.

What type of dumbasses would buy a product like that...


Oh yeah, the AMERICANS!

wow, thats really messed up. good thing he was caught, who knows how many people could have been seriously hurt...

People should be able to bu chemicals like that but it should do what it says on the tin.

What type of dumbasses would buy a product like that...


Oh yeah, the AMERICANS!

well anyone that is desperate might be talked into anything...

He should still be allowed to market it. If you're stupid enough to buy it...well...natural selection.

What type of dumbasses would buy a product like that...


Oh yeah, the AMERICANS!
I see you ate your bigot flakes this morning! :D

So, um, how did the FDA protect anyone here? Or are they simply reactionary?

So, um, how did the FDA protect anyone here? Or are they simply reactionary?

protecting furture potential users of this so called health product...

did you see the "doctor" on 60 minutes who was treating multiple sclerosis with intravenous peroxide?

we do need the FDA to keep these creeps from taking advantage of desperate frightened people

But, of course, there are still people out there who will tell you that we should do away with the FDA - that if someone sells poison or a paste that kills human flesh as medicine, people should be able to buy and sell it as they please. It is, after all, a free market, right?

Bleh.
I'm the free market type - but I see the government's sole purpose as protecting the individual's "life, liberty and property". If something is that harmful than it's obvious that something should be done about it.

Then again, the middle-ground is always an option: privatize the FDA. :)

protecting furture potential users of this so called health product...
I guess I'm missing the part where the FDA is needed for this process.

That's not to say I want to see NO government action here, I just think it can be accomplished with a couple laws and some judiciary action, not a sprawling government bureacracy.

FYI for anyone who likes bottled water in the United States. The f.d.a. regulates bottled water UNLESS it is sold in the same state it is bottled, which most companys do to avoid regulations. Some tests have shown up to 50% of bottled water samples failing to meet federal minimums for TAP water! So enjoy your Avion! :D

I think the FDA's job should be to ensure that the information that is offered regarding a cure or medication is accurate in both the purposeful effects and side-effects. I don't think they should keep medication from the general population if they wish to purchase it. I think it's amazing that there are drugs that would better aid cancer patients that aren't made available to them. If I'm dying, who is the FDA to say that I can't make myself more comfortable?

I don't know this for sure, but I believe there are better sunblocks available in Europe than in the US because the FDA has not approved the active ingredient yet. Things like that are the reason why people complain about the FDA. We need an FDA but it needs to protect us from predatory pharmaceutical companies, not ourselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/29/cancer.paste.ap/index.html



This man is attempting practice medicine without a license, handing this paste out under the pretense that it will only kill cancerous cells. His son even had this to say:



And he says it as if he is all official and can make the suggestion that apoptosis only affects cancer cells. Well, I've got news for him, unless they are sticking cancer-specific antibodies in that paste (something that hasn't been found), anything that causes apoptosis in cancer cells is generally going to cause apoptosis in *any* cells.




But, of course, there are still people out there who will tell you that we should do away with the FDA - that if someone sells poison or a paste that kills human flesh as medicine, people should be able to buy and sell it as they please. It is, after all, a free market, right?

Bleh.

Well, now I'm explaining how does work the things in Spain:

For drugs, we've got something called police.
For phising and internet issues, we've got something called police.
For security of 'hot' places, we've got something called police.
When there is a kidnap, a murder, or a bank robbery, we call the police.
When there's a fire, yeah, we call the firemen, but we can also call the police.

And, to make things easier, we just need to call 112: firemen, paramedics and police all in one.

We don't need FDA, NSA, CIA, FBI, MIB :D , and 58 more agencies.

People should be able to bu chemicals like that but it should do what it says on the tin.

See that last part that I bolded? That is exactly what the FDA is there to ensure!

What type of dumbasses would buy a product like that...

A desperate person with little to no knowledge of biology is going to listen when some crackpot starts throwing around words like "apoptosis". I know the guy is a crackpot because I actually know what apoptosis is - while it is painfully obvious that he either does not or does not care. Your average person off the street might vaguely remember the word from a biology class (maybe) and that's about it. The same holds true of a lot of "technical" terms.

I'm the free market type - but I see the government's sole purpose as protecting the individual's "life, liberty and property". If something is that harmful than it's obvious that something should be done about it.

Exactly.

Then again, the middle-ground is always an option: privatize the FDA.

A private organization would not have the force of law - and it would be folly to place the force of law in the hands of a private organization. Such an organization would also be even more open to deals and corruption - a kind of "You pat my back, I'll pat yours," kind of thing. The last thing we need is a regulatory organization truly owned by the pharmaceuticals, instead of simply being affected by them.

I guess I'm missing the part where the FDA is needed for this process.

That's not to say I want to see NO government action here, I just think it can be accomplished with a couple laws and some judiciary action, not a sprawling government bureacracy.

How do a "couple of laws and some judiciary action," perform tests to ensure that a product truly does what its makers claim? Do you honestly think that a "couple of laws" would regulate all of the possible medical products out there? Do you honestly think that your lawmakers and judges know enough about biology and medicine to make decisions on the safety and efficacy of a product?

My goodness. You make Spain sound like a libertarian paradise. :p

I think the FDA's job should be to ensure that the information that is offered regarding a cure or medication is accurate in both the purposeful effects and side-effects.

That is the FDA's job. They ensure that the product being offered is safe and effective at doing what it claims to do.

I don't think they should keep medication from the general population if they wish to purchase it.

So company A says, "This product will make you skinnier!" What it actually does is give you ulcers. Should the FDA allow it? The general public is not educated enough to know what the ingredients of a "medicine" do, or how to test it to ensure that it is safe. Thus, we have a government agency to do that.

I think it's amazing that there are drugs that would better aid cancer patients that aren't made available to them.

Source? What drugs?

I don't know this for sure, but I believe there are better sunblocks available in Europe than in the US because the FDA has not approved the active ingredient yet.

Define "better". Have these sunblocks been aggressively tested yet? Do you really want a "better" sunblock that, in the long run, ends up killing children? There are reasons for each of the tests the FDA requires. On top of that, they are constantly working to streamline the process and make it less expensive. People complain because they generally have no idea what goes on, or why.

Things like that are the reason why people complain about the FDA. We need an FDA but it needs to protect us from predatory pharmaceutical companies, not ourselves.

That is exactly what the FDA is doing - protecting people from pharmaceutical companies and crackpot "scientists".

My goodness. You make Spain sound like a libertarian paradise. :p

Try it. :D

You'll taste the best meal you've eaten in your life. And the wine. And the chicks. And Real Madrid :D . You're always welcome! :cool:

Well, now I'm explaining how does work the things in Spain:

For drugs, we've got something called police.

Your police are doctors and scientists? They understand biology and what a given drug may or may not do to it? They understand what tests need to be done to ensure that a product does what it claims, and does not cause undue harm?

And this is how the FDA, like all other parts of government, is run by lobbyists.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050829/cm_usatoday/fdaabandonsitsstandards;_ylt=Au57ipbH5kEZj9ci5S0whFP6B2YD;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Just to defend the free market side...

I have to agree, the FDA existed at the time of the event and did not stop it. Unfortunately, the FDA does not always (or ever, I forget) test the drugs. They regulate the corporations and force them to test the drugs themselves. There is no third party testing. Private non-profit organizations like Underwriters Lab are trusted. If a UL type organization existed like the FDA it would actually do third party tests. I would trust that more than a test done by the manufacturer. There has been criticism of the FDA being buddy buddy with Big Pharma, so it isn't like government is somehow impervious to corruption. Fraud is a violation of individual rights and should be prosecuted. What the other posters meant was that laws should be made that protect individual rights, if a party is guilty of a law, they must be convicted, not be held guilty from the start. That sounds terrible as you'd have to wait for someone to be hurt or die, so maybe laws could be made to force medical manufacturers to disclose their studies, etc. I would trust a third party private organization that felt it had to keep its reputation... maybe the American Medical Association (I think they are a private organization.) These types of organizations could replace the government regulation bodies, and government could enforce contracts with the police. This would still leave the problem of having to wait for something bad to happen (we can't arrest potential child molesters), but perhaps voters would want laws that force companies to disclose information. Maybe these organizations could be run by someone for consumer rights, like Ralph Nader! :cool:

That is the FDA's job. They ensure that the product being offered is safe and effective at doing what it claims to do.

I agree.

So company A says, "This product will make you skinnier!" What it actually does is give you ulcers. Should the FDA allow it? The general public is not educated enough to know what the ingredients of a "medicine" do, or how to test it to ensure that it is safe. Thus, we have a government agency to do that.

Right. I think they should make sure that the product does in fact make you skinnier and that it says that there is a high risk of getting ulcers as a side-effect.

Source? What drugs?

Marijuana, for one. To be honest, I heard a cancer patient complain about it, so it's anecdotal. I just think if I'm dying I should be allowed to put whatever I want into my body to make me more comfortable or to attempt to extend my life. Obviously, this is not US drug policy, that the FDA at the very least plays a part in.

Define "better". Have these sunblocks been aggressively tested yet? Do you really want a "better" sunblock that, in the long run, ends up killing children? There are reasons for each of the tests the FDA requires. On top of that, they are constantly working to streamline the process and make it less expensive. People complain because they generally have no idea what goes on, or why.

My understanding is that the current sunblocks in the US do very little to block the actual rays that cause skin cancer. Preventing burning is only a part of the process. In Europe they us a sunblock, that actually blocks those rays to prevent skin cancer altogether. To be fair, again, I've done no research on this. I was told this by a dermatologist. Take it or leave it. I tend to believe it's true. I beleive the FDA generally has the goal of helping the public. I think the process is slow and people suffer when medications are not made available to them in a timely fashion.

That is exactly what the FDA is doing - protecting people from pharmaceutical companies and crackpot "scientists".
I agree that they do, but the government also protect people from themselves which I do not agree with. I don't believe that any drug should be illegal or made unavailable. Companies should just be required to adequately post the side-effects and the likelihood of those side-effects.

The problem with the FDA isn't an absence of purpose. The agency's problem is a complete lack of efficiency. It runs like a slow, clumsy leviathan-- Because that's what it is. That inefficient monstrosity is kept on a short leash, being held by unimaginably wealthy pharmaceutical corporations.
These greedy assholes make the tobacco lobbyists look like virgin schoolgirls by comparison.

I'd like to think that an independant private third party could do the job better.
Without regulation, people would need a Consumer's Watchdog group to turn to for unbiased product education. The question that's hard to answer though; who watches the watchdogs?
Anyone with a viable alternativive to the FDA would be like, let me know.

Right. I think they should make sure that the product does in fact make you skinnier and that it says that there is a high risk of getting ulcers as a side-effect.

I wasn't talking about as a side-effect. A drug that causes ulcers would, indeed, cause you to lose weight. Of course, it would be because of the ulcers. At that point, ulcers aren't a side-effect, they are the effect. The weight loss is the side-effect.

Marijuana, for one.

The FDA has nothing at all to do with marijuana being illegal. That is an act of Congress, completely separate from the FDA. Before it occurred, various medical organizations testified that marijuana might have medicinal effects, but Congress chose to ignore that.

In other words, you'll have to choose something else since the FDA isn't keeping this one off the market.

My understanding is that the current sunblocks in the US do very little to block the actual rays that cause skin cancer.

UV blocking is exactly what sunblocks do - at least from what I know of them.

I think the process is slow and people suffer when medications are not made available to them in a timely fashion.

This is sometimes true - and is something that is being worked on within the agency. As I said, they are constantly trying to streamline the process and to make it less expensive for those going through it.

Your police are doctors and scientists? They understand biology and what a given drug may or may not do to it? They understand what tests need to be done to ensure that a product does what it claims, and does not cause undue harm?

Hopefully the courts would, when "police" is used, it means the enforcers of the law and the judiciary.

I think the common used complaint deals with a beta-blocker that was restricted from its most important uses for several years, although it had been used in Europe (you know, welfare state Europe :p ) and because there was a long wait, people died. If a third party organization existed, then they could give a thumbs up or down. And if the voters wanted an FDA substitute, they could force companies to reveal side effects and their studies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701099.html

Here's an introduction to the sunblocker thing.

Cool ... now ... with that out of the way, explain the FCC.

Well, now I'm explaining how does work the things in Spain:

For drugs, we've got something called police.
For phising and internet issues, we've got something called police.
For security of 'hot' places, we've got something called police.
When there is a kidnap, a murder, or a bank robbery, we call the police.
When there's a fire, yeah, we call the firemen, but we can also call the police.

And, to make things easier, we just need to call 112: firemen, paramedics and police all in one.

We don't need FDA, NSA, CIA, FBI, MIB :D , and 58 more agencies.
Good point. :D

Cool ... now ... with that out of the way, explain the FCC.

LOL! WTF! :p Of course you get more of the "Hollywood liberals" (such a stupid phrase, as if they live in Hollywood, please...) against the FCC because of free speech. Everyone wants to see swearing and boobies on TV. :) Well, except fundamentalist republicans.

You can't talk about the FCC alone till you talk about the government owning the radio waves. Yes, the FCC would like to move out into the internet and onwards, but they are famous for owning "publically owned" radio and TV. But I don't think we're done with the FDA yet! ;)

Your police are doctors and scientists? They understand biology and what a given drug may or may not do to it? They understand what tests need to be done to ensure that a product does what it claims, and does not cause undue harm?

Yes. A patrol police must know all kinds of drugs, how to clean a street of protestersand how to react if there's a shooting in a kidnap, at the same time. There are subdivisions like the "Antiterrorist" and the scientist police (your CSI as seen on TV); but they all are under the same chief.

I wasn't talking about as a side-effect. A drug that causes ulcers would, indeed, cause you to lose weight. Of course, it would be because of the ulcers. At that point, ulcers aren't a side-effect, they are the effect. The weight loss is the side-effect.

Well, if I want to purchase a 'medication' that causes ulcers I should be allowed to also. The FDA should protect us from corrupt corporations, not ourselves.

UV blocking is exactly what sunblocks do - at least from what I know of them.

There are multiple types of UV rays. The kind that cause sunburn are only one type.

This is sometimes true - and is something that is being worked on within the agency. As I said, they are constantly trying to streamline the process and to make it less expensive for those going through it.

And when they accomplish their goal, people will have no reason to complain. Till then...

Everyone wants to see swearing and boobies on TV. :)

Man ... I fuckin' love boobies!

But I don't think we're done with the FDA yet! ;)

Doh!

Ah well ... the FDA I don't mind so much. I don't have the time to go about to every food and medicine processing plant and make sure everything is copacetic before having dinner and an aspirine. I can live with them.

The FCC, however, tells me - a grown man - what I can and cannot watch on TV. For that, the FCC and everyone who endorses it shall be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

But, of course, there are still people out there who will tell you that we should do away with the FDA - that if someone sells poison or a paste that kills human flesh as medicine, people should be able to buy and sell it as they please. It is, after all, a free market, right?

Bleh.

to be fair to free-marketeers, most would propose a system like that used in many other sectors of the economy, where you have one or more (probably leaning towards the 'more' side) well respected independent testing and certification organizations who allow companies to put their trademark on products that passed testing. in the u.s. the major one is underwriters laboratories (http://www.ul.com/). grab pretty much any small appliance in your house and it will have the ul mark on it, as most stores won't even sell products that haven't been approved for fear of lawsuits.

Hopefully the courts would, when "police" is used, it means the enforcers of the law and the judiciary.

Well, I'm sorry, but most judges don't have science degrees at all - much less training in medicine.

I think the common used complaint deals with a beta-blocker that was restricted from its most important uses for several years, although it had been used in Europe (you know, welfare state Europe :p ) and because there was a long wait, people died.

Many things have been used in Europe and then been found to be inadequately tested and unsafe. The first genetic engineering product sailed through in Europe - and seems to have caused leukemia. This slowed research and trials both in the US and in Europe.

If a third party organization existed, then they could give a thumbs up or down.

The fact that you think a "third party organization" could get and review adequate testing of products in any less time than the FDA is rather funny.

Do you know what part of the result of all the complaining is? The FDA has set hard and fast deadlines on approval/denial for many types of products. If, for any reason, they do not make that deadline, the product is assumed to be approved. Lovely, no?

Yes. A patrol police must know all kinds of drugs, how to clean a street of protestersand how to react if there's a shooting in a kidnap, at the same time.

Really? You find me a patrol police officer that can explain to me exactly how psedoephedrine works. Or find me a patrol police officer that understands what a Cox II inhibitor is and what it does. Or find me a patrol officer that understands exactly why some drugs warn you not to take them along with an MAO inhibitor.

Well, if I want to purchase a 'medication' that causes ulcers I should be allowed to also. The FDA should protect us from corrupt corporations, not ourselves.

What if you are an expectant mother? Is it perfectly ok for you to get yourself sick on purpose then, possibly causing your death and leaving any infant born on the state to take care of?

What if you are living off of government aid - taxpayer money. Should you be able to harm yourself and then expect us to clean up your mess?

Under current law, I would say that you absolutely do not have this right, because you are currently entitled to government-paid-for medical care for your own stupidity under current law. Thus, the government can have a say in what "medicine" is available to you. If you want to make it illegal to provide indigent care to people who take drugs that harm them - you might have a point - but I really don't want to live in a country where we refuse true medical care to anyone.

Then there is the fact that many drugs illicit side-effects that can cause you to be harmful to other people. This could be direct - as in actually producing chemical changes that make you violent and irrational. It could be indirect or long-term. For instance, a person who decides to drink a bottle of antibiotic a day would be contributing to antibiotic-resistant infections - making it more difficult for intelligent people to be able to stay healthy. Thus, the government isn't protecting you from yourself - but is actually protecting other citizens from being harmed by your stupidity.

Human beings don't live in a vacuum. I agree that the government sometimes goes too far in "protecting us from ourselves". But to say that the government should not do so at all is to promote anarchy.

And when they accomplish their goal, people will have no reason to complain. Till then...

They have accomplished that goal. And they continue to set new goals and work towards them. This isn't a process that everybody is ever going to be satisfied with, especially since most people don't even understand it - even the companies going through it. They think there are too many "unecessary" tests. Thing is, most such tests have been added because they weren't done - and something turned out to be unsafe and harmed the populace. Thus, they are now required.

to be fair to free-marketeers, most would propose a system like that used in many other sectors of the economy, where you have one or more (probably leaning towards the 'more' side) well respected independent testing and certification organizations who allow companies to put their trademark on products that passed testing. in the u.s. the major one is underwriters laboratories (http://www.ul.com/). grab pretty much any small appliance in your house and it will have the ul mark on it, as most stores won't even sell products that haven't been approved for fear of lawsuits.

Of course, in those cases, we are talking about products that don't go inside the body - and generally are not necessary to survival.

The same cannot be said of medicine. When we start talking about life and death situations on a regular basis - I think we need the backing of law behind it, not simply, "Well, we voluntarily met the standards voluntarily placed by this voluntarily created organization and we think you should voluntarily trust them."

Flesh eating Disease.. MmMmMm.. i'm feeling hungry.

How do a "couple of laws and some judiciary action," perform tests to ensure that a product truly does what its makers claim?
Did the FDA do this beforehand in this case? Or like I said before, are they simply reactionary?

If it's the latter, advertising a product as a cancer cure when all it really does is melt your face off is an obvious case of fraud. Did you really need an FDA to tell you that?

Well, now I'm explaining how does work the things in Spain:

For drugs, we've got something called police.
For phising and internet issues, we've got something called police.
For security of 'hot' places, we've got something called police.
When there is a kidnap, a murder, or a bank robbery, we call the police.
When there's a fire, yeah, we call the firemen, but we can also call the police.

And, to make things easier, we just need to call 112: firemen, paramedics and police all in one.

We don't need FDA, NSA, CIA, FBI, MIB :D , and 58 more agencies.

Get rid of the ATF-because Alcohol, Tobbacco, and Firearms should be just another Convenience store, not a Goverment agency.

And the EPA. I want spotted owl for dinner.

eh, Apoptosses, for those who don't know, is not the killing of flesh.
It is the label applied to the process in which a cell destroys itself. It's just a fancy name for cell suicide.

It's also a natural and normal process that is happening in everyone everyday.

But, of course, there are still people out there who will tell you that we should do away with the FDA - that if someone sells poison or a paste that kills human flesh as medicine, people should be able to buy and sell it as they please. It is, after all, a free market, right?

Bleh.
Yes, because in the long run its not a worthwhile expenditure; if someone sells flesh-eating paste chances are it won't be much of a success. People who tend to favor heavy regulations for business like to pretend to think that people would just keep buying and consuming it on a regular basis.

Also, you're probably hearing about this because its news, i.e., it's something that doesn't happen often. I'd be willing to bet that the chances of this happening on a large-scale basis are lower than most things we accept in life. I doubt the chances of someone releasing a highly toxic, skin eating compound are any more significant on a day to day basis than, say, getting into a car accident.

Did the FDA do this beforehand in this case? Or like I said before, are they simply reactionary?

If it's the latter, advertising a product as a cancer cure when all it really does is melt your face off is an obvious case of fraud. Did you really need an FDA to tell you that?

In order to market something as a drug, the FDA must approve it. This guy is marketing a drug without approval - thus doing something illegal. Had he gone through the correct procedures, then all of the tests would have been required and the data examined. They are reactionary in this case is a case of fraud. Of course, if we didn't have FDA regulations at all, this wouldn't be fraud - it would be the free market at work.

There is an out, unfortunately, for those who wish to get around regulation. They just call things "herbal remedies" and they are not, by law, required to go through regulation. They cannot, however, claim that their product has an actual medicinal or curative effect. If they do, it falls under the purview of the FDA.


Yes, because in the long run its not a worthwhile expenditure; if someone sells flesh-eating paste chances are it won't be much of a success. People who tend to favor heavy regulations for business like to pretend to think that people would just keep buying and consuming it on a regular basis.

Well, the time before the FDA demonstrated this to be rather true, with people taking "cure-alls" that advertised that they would cure any illness, as well as dye your hair, and clean your floors. People kept buying meat that was untested and gave them diseases. It isn't as if people are pulling this out of the blue. It has been observed.

Also, you're probably hearing about this because its news, i.e., it's something that doesn't happen often.

You can't be like, "This doesn't happen often. Therefore, if we got rid of regulation and laws, it still wouldn't happen often!" It's like saying, "Neighboorhoods don't burn down very often. Therefore, if we got rid of all fire departments, they still wouldn't!"

What if you are an expectant mother? Is it perfectly ok for you to get yourself sick on purpose then, possibly causing your death and leaving any infant born on the state to take care of?

You could say the same thing about any drugs. If you drink alcohol while pregnant and harm the child you will likely have your child taken from you whether you survive or not. The state can't deny everyone rights because some people might abuse them. A pregnant woman could also stab herself with a screwdriver, should a screwdriver be illegal as well?

What if you are living off of government aid - taxpayer money. Should you be able to harm yourself and then expect us to clean up your mess?

Same screwdriver argument.

Under current law, I would say that you absolutely do not have this right, because you are currently entitled to government-paid-for medical care for your own stupidity under current law. Thus, the government can have a say in what "medicine" is available to you. If you want to make it illegal to provide indigent care to people who take drugs that harm them - you might have a point - but I really don't want to live in a country where we refuse true medical care to anyone.

No, under current law you are not permitted to do anything you like to your body, but you should be. You cannot commit suicide. Euthanasia is illegal. There are illegal drugs. I disagree with all of these things.

As far as government-paid-for medical care for your own stupidity, that's an argument for forcing people to eat better. Let's outlaw fast foods. And cigarettes. And alcohol. Salt. Oh, yes, salt definitely causes some problems. Sugar. Potato chips. Those things'll kill ya! No more suntanning, riding motorcycles, skateboarding, kids playing football, etc. The point is there are things that are equally stupid. This is not a reason to abridge personal freedoms.

Then there is the fact that many drugs illicit side-effects that can cause you to be harmful to other people. This could be direct - as in actually producing chemical changes that make you violent and irrational. It could be indirect or long-term. For instance, a person who decides to drink a bottle of antibiotic a day would be contributing to antibiotic-resistant infections - making it more difficult for intelligent people to be able to stay healthy. Thus, the government isn't protecting you from yourself - but is actually protecting other citizens from being harmed by your stupidity.

Chemical changes that make you violent and irrational? You mean like the effects of alcohol. Last I checked, that was legal.

As far as antibiotics, come on. I can antibiotics in about a second in just about any doctor's office in the country. I've been offered antibiotics several times when I turned them down. They always add, "just in case".

Human beings don't live in a vacuum. I agree that the government sometimes goes too far in "protecting us from ourselves". But to say that the government should not do so at all is to promote anarchy.

You should probably look up anarchy. The government has a responsibility to protect us from other people. That's what prevents anarchy.

They have accomplished that goal. And they continue to set new goals and work towards them. This isn't a process that everybody is ever going to be satisfied with, especially since most people don't even understand it - even the companies going through it. They think there are too many "unecessary" tests. Thing is, most such tests have been added because they weren't done - and something turned out to be unsafe and harmed the populace. Thus, they are now required.

No, they haven't accomplished anything. They are a huge beauracracy-soaked morass (is that how they say it in NS?). It's a slow, tedious process and, in the end, drugs still get through that were not sufficiently tested and drugs that are perfectly safe are shelved for WAY too long.

You could say the same thing about any drugs.

Not really. All drugs don't have side effects that are incredibly harmful (both to the mother and to the fetus).

Same screwdriver argument.

If someone intentionally stabs themself with a screwdriver, they probably shouldn't be entitled to government-sponsored medical care. From a compassionate angle, I would want to provide it anyways, but I can certainly see why many people would not want their money spent on someone who stabbed themselves on purpose.

No, under current law you are not permitted to do anything you like to your body, but you should be.

If you can do anything to your body, you must be fully prepared to personally account for all of the consequences. You cannot expect that anyone else will give you anything - not even medical care.

You cannot commit suicide. Euthanasia is illegal.

I disagree with these.

There are illegal drugs.

I disagree with some of these, but not those that the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in banning. At the very least, I think the govenment should be able to require that someone taking certain drugs be locked up in a padded room which they cannot get out of and harm other people. These people should be those who do not have children or any other dependents.

As far as government-paid-for medical care for your own stupidity, that's an argument for forcing people to eat better.

Not really. There is a difference between intentionally harming yourself and not intentionally bettering yourself.

Chemical changes that make you violent and irrational? You mean like the effects of alcohol. Last I checked, that was legal.

Alcohol doesn't make everyone violent. For those it does, they have often been placed under court-order not to drink alcohol - or to be in contempt of court.

As far as antibiotics, come on. I can antibiotics in about a second in just about any doctor's office in the country. I've been offered antibiotics several times when I turned them down. They always add, "just in case".

Once upon a time, that was common. The adverse effects were not known. These days, mothers beg for antibiotics for their children with flu, because they are so very convinced it will help, and are flat-out refused.

You should probably look up anarchy. The government has a responsibility to protect us from other people. That's what prevents anarchy.

And I have explained how these laws protect us from other people. When we say protect us from [/i]ourselves[/i], we are talking about a group. The government protects the community from elements within itself.

No, they haven't accomplished anything.

Actually, they have. Take a for instance: My field, the field of tissue engineering, used to be a dead-end road at the FDA. They weren't sure how to regulate tissue-engineered products, so the products were regulated by the most stringent tests - something that a devices company generally cannot afford. Thus, only three tissue-engineered products have been approved - and those companies went bankrupt soon after.

However, upon seeing the problem, the FDA began working with researchers and industry in this field. They streamlined the process and determined how such a "combination product" might be handled. They set up employees whose sole purpose is to help small companies get through the process as quickly and cheaply as possible.

There are still improvements that can be made, but they have most certainly made progress.

The fact that you think a "third party organization" could get and review adequate testing of products in any less time than the FDA is rather funny.


Of course this is the point where the FDA comes in, during the testing phase. I don't think anyone thinks the "third party organization" would always do it faster, but they would be the ones testing it and it would be legal to buy while they tested it. If you took the drug and it didn't do what it was supposed to do, that's fraud. If there were laws forcing the companies to disclose information about the drug (although this isn't completely libertarain anymore) and they lied, that's fraud and they will be responsible for any bad things that happen. The FDA doesn't always test the drugs (in fact I think they don't at all, or not usually) they tell the makers how to test them. If a manufacturer was allowed to test the drug then they might only use a small sample base, or just keep testing till they got the results they wanted (indeed, I have heard that this has happened and they can keep the other tests secret.) To safeguard, the FDA tells the companies the procedures they are to follow and then they review them. I would like a third party organization to do the testing themselves. This may mean the third party organization may actually take longer! But the tests would be independent and the drug would be legal while it was being tested (unless the states had stronger laws than the current federal ones.) Because the court system would still exist, drug manufacturers could be prosecuted for crimes, just because they are rich and important doesn't make them above the law.


What if you are an expectant mother?...

Almost headed into third rail territory there.


What if you are living off of government aid - taxpayer money. Should you be able to harm yourself and then expect us to clean up your mess?
Under current law, I would say that you absolutely do not have this right, because you are currently entitled to government-paid-for medical care for your own stupidity under current law. Thus, the government can have a say in what "medicine" is available to you. If you want to make it illegal to provide indigent care to people who take drugs that harm them - you might have a point - but I really don't want to live in a country where we refuse true medical care to anyone.

This is one of the wierd things I have never understood. So what? Just because they are on government aid doesn't mean the government owns their body or they now have less rights. For all the complaints about private charity, at least they don't claim to own your body, the government tends to do this (like the draft as "payment" for the social contract.) I thought government provided health care because they loved us :rolleyes: , now its because we are stupid (I suspected that was the reason, that and votes :p .) Of course, even if all the smartest bueracrats were put in a room, their collective intelligence would not match the collective intelligence of the dumb masses (but now I'm going off on a tangent.) So yes, if I were on government, or anybody's, aid and I was not told that I couldn't screw around with my body and not expect more money, I would expect you to clean it up. Otherwise, why would you give me the aid? If taxpayers became upset, they could simply refuse aid to those people that "screwed up."

I don't like that the government thinks it owns our bodies and can put things in it or refuse us the ability to put things in it. This is how people argue that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, because the community has a claim on our lives and how we live it. Maybe its not such a big deal now, but I've heard of cases where schools have told parents to put their troublesome children on drugs. With this type of precedent, couldn't the government say that all people must be ID tagged with a radio frequency chip? You could go into a Brave New World scenario where the government keeps everyone on "soma" so they are docile.


Then there is the fact that many drugs illicit side-effects that can cause you to be harmful to other people. This could be direct - as in actually producing chemical changes that make you violent and irrational. It could be indirect or long-term. For instance, a person who decides to drink a bottle of antibiotic a day would be contributing to antibiotic-resistant infections - making it more difficult for intelligent people to be able to stay healthy. Thus, the government isn't protecting you from yourself - but is actually protecting other citizens from being harmed by your stupidity.
Human beings don't live in a vacuum. I agree that the government sometimes goes too far in "protecting us from ourselves". But to say that the government should not do so at all is to promote anarchy.

Here's where I can agree with you. You're right, drugs do effect our abilities (hence why the prescription bottles usually say not to handle heavy equipment.) But those people could still be prosecuted violating other people's rights if they did so. You have a point with the antibiotic drinker. But what can the FDA do to stop them (or any government agency?) I haven't seen DEA agents breaking into houses looking for people trying to make antibiotic resistant bacteria by drinking penicillin constantly. :mp5:

Well, the time before the FDA demonstrated this to be rather true, with people taking "cure-alls" that advertised that they would cure any illness, as well as dye your hair, and clean your floors. People kept buying meat that was untested and gave them diseases. It isn't as if people are pulling this out of the blue. It has been observed.
It's been observed 100 years in the past.

You can't be like, "This doesn't happen often. Therefore, if we got rid of regulation and laws, it still wouldn't happen often!" It's like saying, "Neighboorhoods don't burn down very often. Therefore, if we got rid of all fire departments, they still wouldn't!"
Why not? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I'm saying. Fire Departments don't really prevent fires; they just put them out when they happen. Paying them to come around and put out a fire every once in a while is sort of like insurance: it makes sense and it works.

On the other hand, paying the FDA doesn't generally strike me as a particularly worthwhile investment. I'm sure they do a fair bit of 'good' in certain circumstances, but anyone who would use any over-the counter product for cancer without consulting a doctor ought to have his head examined. Basically they're taking away my money to make choices which I'm perfectly capable of making on my own.

What I'm saying here is everyone should get their heads out of their asses--government and corporations alike. You're not doing yourself or anyone else any good by selling tainted meat or flesh-eating cream. You're also not doing yourself or anyone else any good regulating the ever loving bejesus out of thousands of legitimate businessmen in an attempt to catch the handful of bad ones that might be out there somewhere.

Actually, they have. Take a for instance: My field, the field of tissue engineering, used to be a dead-end road at the FDA. They weren't sure how to regulate tissue-engineered products, so the products were regulated by the most stringent tests - something that a devices company generally cannot afford. Thus, only three tissue-engineered products have been approved - and those companies went bankrupt soon after.
However, upon seeing the problem, the FDA began working with researchers and industry in this field. They streamlined the process and determined how such a "combination product" might be handled. They set up employees whose sole purpose is to help small companies get through the process as quickly and cheaply as possible.
There are still improvements that can be made, but they have most certainly made progress.
The AIDS crisis caused an outcry against the slow movement of the FDA not allowing certain drugs to get in. They did work with the corporations and got those out. But this led to the FDA and corporations getting cozy with one another. Power interest groups could force out competition, not by offering better and safer drugs, but by having the FDA force them to test and retest. I'm not saying this is widespread, just that political economies are not as rosy as they appear.

Well, now I'm explaining how does work the things in Spain:
For drugs, we've got something called police.
For phising and internet issues, we've got something called police.
For security of 'hot' places, we've got something called police.
When there is a kidnap, a murder, or a bank robbery, we call the police.
When there's a fire, yeah, we call the firemen, but we can also call the police.
And, to make things easier, we just need to call 112: firemen, paramedics and police all in one.
We don't need FDA, NSA, CIA, FBI, MIB :D , and 58 more agencies.
Oh yeah, like the European Union doesn't have an equivalent to the FDA which decides for all its member states whether a drug is allowed to go public... Same for food, health, security issues, anti-terrorism, and the list goes on and on. And each of the mentioned European agencies surely have their Spanish counterpart - at least in Germany they do, would be strange if Spain didn't have'em.
And like Spain doesn't have some kind of Secret Service, Military Secret Service, Federal/National Police...
Not quite the libertarian paradise that you wanted everyone to believe, now is it?

As for those "doctors" and their "bitter medicine" - glad they don't stand a chance here...
These people ought to be... na, we're a constitutional state and this is neither the Mid-Ages nor the Wild West.
Just make them work their ass off and pay for their whole life.

Of course this is the point where the FDA comes in, during the testing phase. I don't think anyone thinks the "third party organization" would always do it faster, but they would be the ones testing it and it would be legal to buy while they tested it.

Great, so it is legal to buy a drug before we really know what it does. Of course, the company can't say what it does - because it hasn't been tested yet. So we'd just say, "Here's a drug. Take it if you want. We'll let you know what it does later, when we've tested it." Wonderful idea! Should we make it legal to sell beef from a cow that acted a little crazy until after we test it for BSE?

Meanwhile, where does this third party organization get the billions of dollars necessary to run all the tests necessary on every product?

If you took the drug and it didn't do what it was supposed to do, that's fraud.

You can't really say what it is supposed to do until its been tested. You can say what you think it might do - but until it has gone through tests, you can't know for sure.

The FDA doesn't always test the drugs (in fact I think they don't at all, or not usually) they tell the makers how to test them.

Actually, the makers don't test them either. The drug company provides a protocol for testing, which the FDA approves (or not). If the protocol is approved, the company can set up randomized trials - that are performed by independent hospitals and doctors, not by the company itself. The only testing actually performed by the company itself are the animal and cell culture tests.

I would like a third party organization to do the testing themselves.

And who pays for that?

This may mean the third party organization may actually take longer! But the tests would be independent and the drug would be legal while it was being tested (unless the states had stronger laws than the current federal ones.)

Again, you are suggesting that we start selling something before we actually know if it does anything at all (good or bad) in the human body. I really don't think that's a good idea.

This is one of the wierd things I have never understood. So what? Just because they are on government aid doesn't mean the government owns their body or they now have less rights.

No, it doesn't. They have all the rights of any human being - they just can't expect others to help them out if they get in a jam. It is an either/or thing. Either your healthcare is provided by other people, and they therefore get a say in how it is used, or your healthcare is provided by yourself - you pay yourself - and you can do whatever you want. Your rights end where another's begin. Therefore, if you expect anything from anyone else, you must give up some of your autonomy to them.

I don't like that the government thinks it owns our bodies and can put things in it or refuse us the ability to put things in it.

I don't think that this type of mentality is right either. But there are tradeoffs. If you expect something from the government or community, you must give something to the government or community.

Here's where I can agree with you. You're right, drugs do effect our abilities (hence why the prescription bottles usually say not to handle heavy equipment.) But those people could still be prosecuted violating other people's rights if they did so. You have a point with the antibiotic drinker. But what can the FDA do to stop them (or any government agency?) I haven't seen DEA agents breaking into houses looking for people trying to make antibiotic resistant bacteria by drinking penicillin constantly. :mp5:

Right now, people can't get antibiotics on a regular basis unless they are prescribed. It is the FDA (in general) that determines what drugs are OTC and which ones require a prescription. Thus, the government stops someone from constantly drinking antibiotics by making it incredibly difficult for a person who does not need them to get them in the first place.

It's been observed 100 years in the past.

Have human beings ceased being human since then?


Why not? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I'm saying. Fire Departments don't really prevent fires; they just put them out when they happen. Paying them to come around and put out a fire every once in a while is sort of like insurance: it makes sense and it works.

Putting out a fire prevents that fire from spreading to other houses/buildings/trees and causing an entire neighboorhood or even an entire city (Chicago fire anyone? - that's what "privatized" fire protection gets you) to burn down. Thus, thanks to the fire departments, most fires are confined to one building and are put out fairly quickly.

You're not doing yourself or anyone else any good by selling tainted meat or flesh-eating cream.

Actually, if you are making money, you are doing yourself quite a bit of good.

You're also not doing yourself or anyone else any good regulating the ever loving bejesus out of thousands of legitimate businessmen in an attempt to catch the handful of bad ones that might be out there somewhere.

Most of what the FDA does is not an "attempt to catch" the bad anything. It is an attempt to ensure that the drugs that the businesses are putting out do what they say they do, and are relatively safe (no drug is 100% safe). They aren't saying, "You're bad, so we're going to regulate you." They are saying, "You are working with life and death here. An untested aspect of your drug could cause citizens, even well-informed ones, to die/be maimed/etc. Therefore, we are going to be as sure as we possibly can be that this will not happen."

The AIDS crisis caused an outcry against the slow movement of the FDA not allowing certain drugs to get in. They did work with the corporations and got those out.

They mainly did this by changing the regulations. A drug, in certain situations, can be released with less stringent testing (pending further review as it is used). These situations include diseases for which there currently is no real treatment (AIDs), diseases that are only found in such a small population that large-scale testing simply isn't possible (Progeria), and I think there was one other example.

Not really. All drugs don't have side effects that are incredibly harmful (both to the mother and to the fetus).

Fine you could say the same thing about other things I can get legally anyway. I can buy poison. No one can stop me from taking it. Your argument does not hold.

If someone intentionally stabs themself with a screwdriver, they probably shouldn't be entitled to government-sponsored medical care. From a compassionate angle, I would want to provide it anyways, but I can certainly see why many people would not want their money spent on someone who stabbed themselves on purpose.

If this is the rule then it would be the same rule for these medications. Still not an argument for outlawing them.

If you can do anything to your body, you must be fully prepared to personally account for all of the consequences. You cannot expect that anyone else will give you anything - not even medical care.

Fair enough. That is not the case now, however. You are allowed to do some potentially, or even definitely, harmful things while others are disallowed. Regardless of legality or stupidity, you receive the same care.

I disagree with some of these, but not those that the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in banning. At the very least, I think the govenment should be able to require that someone taking certain drugs be locked up in a padded room which they cannot get out of and harm other people. These people should be those who do not have children or any other dependents.

It is already illegal to harm other people. There is no drug that's use will guarantee you will harm other people. When you decide to harm people, you have broken the law and you go to jail. Just like the fact that you are permitted to deny medication with certain mental disorders. You have to pretty much be a guaranteed threat in order to be ordered to take meds.

Not really. There is a difference between intentionally harming yourself and not intentionally bettering yourself.

Eating the way that some Americans do can easily and has been compared to using heroin.

Alcohol doesn't make everyone violent. For those it does, they have often been placed under court-order not to drink alcohol - or to be in contempt of court.

What drug does make everyone violent? Can you name a drug that guarantees violent behavior? Certainly not the majority of illegal drugs. For those that alcohol makes violent, the court waits until they break the law in order to place this order on the person. Could this not be true of any other drug?

Once upon a time, that was common. The adverse effects were not known. These days, mothers beg for antibiotics for their children with flu, because they are so very convinced it will help, and are flat-out refused.

I didn't ask for antibiotics. I was offered them and then encouraged to take them. In one case, I was told there was a very, very small chance I would need them.

And I have explained how these laws protect us from other people. When we say protect us from [/i]ourselves[/i], we are talking about a group. The government protects the community from elements within itself.

And I'm talking about protecting a person from him or herself which the government quite clearly does and has nothing to do with preventing anarchy. Obviously the government has the job of protecting us from other people. This should be their focus. Making a motorcyclist wear a helmet or denying a cancer patient marijuana has nothing to do with protecting the general populace.

Actually, they have. Take a for instance: My field, the field of tissue engineering, used to be a dead-end road at the FDA. They weren't sure how to regulate tissue-engineered products, so the products were regulated by the most stringent tests - something that a devices company generally cannot afford. Thus, only three tissue-engineered products have been approved - and those companies went bankrupt soon after.

However, upon seeing the problem, the FDA began working with researchers and industry in this field. They streamlined the process and determined how such a "combination product" might be handled. They set up employees whose sole purpose is to help small companies get through the process as quickly and cheaply as possible.

There are still improvements that can be made, but they have most certainly made progress.

I didn't say they haven't made progress. I said they are not there yet. They're not. You've agreed they're not. Improvement is the path, not the goal. They haven't reached the goal of an efficient organization. One example of efficiency does not mean they are efficient. You argument is basically, "yes, blacks aren't allowed to vote but they used to be slaves so we're getting better. No reason to complain."

I can buy poison. No one can stop me from taking it.

Technically, they can. If a police officer, for instance, is alerted that you are going to take poison, said officer can take you into custody.

Now, should that officer be able to do so? That is certainly a debateable point. I would say no, so long as you don't have kids/other dependents in the house unprovided for.

If this is the rule then it would be the same rule for these medications. Still not an argument for outlawing them.

The point is that this isn't the rule. The rule right now is that everyone in this country is entitled to emergency medical care on an indigent basis. If you would like to do away with that law so that people can jab themselves in the eyeballs with screwdrivers whenever they like or go buy an MAO inhibitor along with Nyquil and drink entire bottles of it and simply be turned away from an emergency room - you go right ahead and fight for that. I'd much rather have a compassionate system where we help all who are in need, and do what we can to ensure that less people get hurt.

It is already illegal to harm other people. There is no drug that's use will guarantee you will harm other people. When you decide to harm people, you have broken the law and you go to jail.

Actually, if you are under the influence of some drugs, you are automatically considered insane. Thus, you are not held responsible for anything you do, as you have a tried and true insanity defense. Of course, if what you were doing in the first place is illegal, you have no excuse...

What drug does make everyone violent? Can you name a drug that guarantees violent behavior?

PCP pretty much guarrantees that you will become a danger to yourself and others unless you somehow take it in isolation. Now, I'm all for requiring people who want to take PCP to be completely isolated (and to pay for said isolation) if they really want to take it - but it's really much easier just to disallow such a dangerous drug altogether.

Making a motorcyclist wear a helmet or denying a cancer patient marijuana has nothing to do with protecting the general populace.

No, it doesn't. And that is why the government probably shouldn't do these things. That doesn't mean the government has no place regulating anything.

I didn't say they haven't made progress. I said they are not there yet. They're not. You've agreed they're not. Improvement is the path, not the goal. They haven't reached the goal of an efficient organization. One example of efficiency does not mean they are efficient. You argument is basically, "yes, blacks aren't allowed to vote but they used to be slaves so we're getting better. No reason to complain."

No, it isn't. If you would actually read my argument, you would see that I haven't stated any such thing.

The goal is to become more efficient - to streamline the process and make it less expensive. They have done this. However, they continue to try and improve. It is more along the lines of a martial arts class. When you reach yellow belt, you have met a goal - and that goal is part of your progress. When you reach black belt, you have met an even higher goal, and you have improved your performance even more. And so on, and so on...

Like I said, the FDA will never be perfect. It will never satisfy everyone. That simply isn't possible.

Technically, they can. If a police officer, for instance, is alerted that you are going to take poison, said officer can take you into custody.

Now, should that officer be able to do so? That is certainly a debateable point. I would say no, so long as you don't have kids/other dependents in the house unprovided for.



The point is that this isn't the rule. The rule right now is that everyone in this country is entitled to emergency medical care on an indigent basis. If you would like to do away with that law so that people can jab themselves in the eyeballs with screwdrivers whenever they like or go buy an MAO inhibitor along with Nyquil and drink entire bottles of it and simply be turned away from an emergency room - you go right ahead and fight for that. I'd much rather have a compassionate system where we help all who are in need, and do what we can to ensure that less people get hurt.



Actually, if you are under the influence of some drugs, you are automatically considered insane. Thus, you are not held responsible for anything you do, as you have a tried and true insanity defense. Of course, if what you were doing in the first place is illegal, you have no excuse...



PCP pretty much guarrantees that you will become a danger to yourself and others unless you somehow take it in isolation. Now, I'm all for requiring people who want to take PCP to be completely isolated (and to pay for said isolation) if they really want to take it - but it's really much easier just to disallow such a dangerous drug altogether.



No, it doesn't. And that is why the government probably shouldn't do these things. That doesn't mean the government has no place regulating anything.



No, it isn't. If you would actually read my argument, you would see that I haven't stated any such thing.

The goal is to become more efficient - to streamline the process and make it less expensive. They have done this. However, they continue to try and improve. It is more along the lines of a martial arts class. When you reach yellow belt, you have met a goal - and that goal is part of your progress. When you reach black belt, you have met an even higher goal, and you have improved your performance even more. And so on, and so on...

Like I said, the FDA will never be perfect. It will never satisfy everyone. That simply isn't possible.

Ach! We're not that far apart idealogically and we've gotten a little away from the FDA debate so let's agree to leave at your last reply.

Incidentally, I was just reading about the effects of taking an MAO inhibitor and ADHD medication right before I read your post. Apparently not a good idea. No, I didn't do it.

People should be able to bu chemicals like that but it should do what it says on the tin.Really? So we could return to the beginning of the 1900s when heroin was sold as a cough suppressant? I mean, as long as it suppresses the cough which it says it's going to do, it's acceptable, right? Or let's not forget the cocaine in Coca-Cola. If it says it wakes you up and it does, it should be sold, right?

Eating the way that some Americans do can easily and has been compared to using heroin.
Except, of course, that food is necessary to live on, and heroin is not. Unless, of course, you have whooping cough and you're buying it as a cough suppressant.

Yes. A patrol police must know all kinds of drugs, how to clean a street of protestersand how to react if there's a shooting in a kidnap, at the same time. There are subdivisions like the "Antiterrorist" and the scientist police (your CSI as seen on TV); but they all are under the same chief.


I like the Spanish Police. While playing @ a party in Barcelona, they marched in, stopped the party, grabbed a bunch of dudes they already knew were dealing GHB and Ecstasy, then just "Okay, carry on" walked off and let the party to begin again unhindered. Fucked up....in a good way.

Really? So we could return to the beginning of the 1900s when heroin was sold as a cough suppressant? I mean, as long as it suppresses the cough which it says it's going to do, it's acceptable, right? Or let's not forget the cocaine in Coca-Cola. If it says it wakes you up and it does, it should be sold, right?

And what was the percentage of people addicted to heroin and cocaine then compared to now? Has outlawing it improved things considerably? How many people are in jail as a result of our "War on Drugs"?

More importantly, according to what everyone has said it would say clearly on the Coca-cola can that it contained addictive substances with the effects of cocaine listed. Same for the heroin. That is much different than the 1900's.

Except, of course, that food is necessary to live on, and heroin is not. Unless, of course, you have whooping cough and you're buying it as a cough suppressant.

The amount of food Americans consume and the types are not. Fast food is not necessary to live on. Fried chicken is not necessary to live on. Potato chips are not necessary to live on. Sugar-Frosted Fat O's is not necessary to live on.

And what was the percentage of people addicted to heroin and cocaine then compared to now? Has outlawing it improved things considerably? I couldn't tell you.

How many people are in jail as a result of our "War on Drugs"?Quite a few. Not to get off on a tangent on the "war on drugs" but it's accomplishing what it's intended to (which isn't to get people off of drugs.) But that's, as I said, another tangent.

More importantly, according to what everyone has said it would say clearly on the Coca-cola can that it contained addictive substances with the effects of cocaine listed. Same for the heroin. That is much different than the 1900's.And without the FDA, how would it be determined what the effects of a particular substance on a person would be?


The amount of food Americans consume and the types are not. Fast food is not necessary to live on. Fried chicken is not necessary to live on. Potato chips are not necessary to live on. Sugar-Frosted Fat O's is not necessary to live on.Just about all food (if not all food) has some kind of nutritional value.

And without the FDA, how would it be determined what the effects of a particular substance on a person would be?

You're arguing with the wrong person. I support the FDA testing substances and forcing companies to fully disclose all known effects and side-effects of a food or drug.

Just about all food (if not all food) has some kind of nutritional value.

Really? Life savers? Twizzlers? A can of Mountain Dew? What do these things have that you NEED? Certainly heroin has more redeeming value than any of these things.

I'm not against the FDA in itself, so much as the system that it is a part of.

Let's go this way..

Let these snake oils on the market. If not FDA approved, NO (as in none) public aid for side effects. I'm sure private insurance w/ follow suit.

If given to children, same thing as to the "healing power of prayer" fad followers. Severe jail time.

I'm not against the FDA in itself, so much as the system that it is a part of.

The US government?

You're arguing with the wrong person. I support the FDA testing substances and forcing companies to fully disclose all known effects and side-effects of a food or drug.So then is your issue is that when a drug is shown to be unsafe it is then banned?


Really? Life savers? Twizzlers? A can of Mountain Dew? What do these things have that you NEED? Certainly heroin has more redeeming value than any of these things.Calories. People need to take in calories to survive.

On a relatively unrelated note, did you know you can treat brown recluse spider bites with a stungun?

Putting out a fire prevents that fire from spreading to other houses/buildings/trees and causing an entire neighboorhood or even an entire city (Chicago fire anyone? - that's what "privatized" fire protection gets you) to burn down. Thus, thanks to the fire departments, most fires are confined to one building and are put out fairly quickly.
I know you're quite busy, responding to multiple posts at once, but please take the time to read and understand my responses before you answer them. The above makes the assumption that I attacked Fire Stations as legitimate functions of government, which I haven't done.

Actually, if you are making money, you are doing yourself quite a bit of good.
Not if you're generating a respectable pool of people who want you dead/injured/robbed/maimed or what-have you. Hon, I'm an Objectivist for Christ's sake, and I'm here to tell you that this is a ridiculous oversimplification. Simply put, if you generate your wealth using unscrupulous tactics , you gather more hatred than wealth. All it takes is one person to act on it and all of a sudden you're 6 feet under.

Surely you're aware of all those 'miracle' cure peddlers of last century since you seemed quite eager to invoke them here. Tell me.... do you happen to know what [i]happened to those people? I'll give you a hint: most were killed or severely beaten.

Most of what the FDA does is not an "attempt to catch" the bad anything. It is an attempt to ensure that the drugs that the businesses are putting out do what they say they do, and are relatively safe (no drug is 100% safe). They aren't saying, "You're bad, so we're going to regulate you."

Plan B. Enough said.

They are saying, "You are working with life and death here. An untested aspect of your drug could cause citizens, even well-informed ones, to die/be maimed/etc. Therefore, we are going to be as sure as we possibly can be that this will not happen."
I'll grant you taht: truth be told it's usually pretty hard for me to get riled up about the FDA; as far as government bullshit goes, the FDA is pretty low on the totem pole. Still, the reason you're hearing about all this is because it's news: you're hearing about it because it doesn't happen often. People don't try to sell shit like this every day, and fewer of us are stupid enough to buy it than you'd probably like to think.

So then is your issue is that when a drug is shown to be unsafe it is then banned?

Yep. If I want to ingest an unsafe drug I should be permitted to do so. We mark poison and I can ingest it if I like at my own risk.

Calories. People need to take in calories to survive.

Ridiculous. Technically I can get calories from just about anything and get more nutrition than candy and sodas. You gain almost nothing from empty calories and you could easily make a case that heroin offers more benefits than empty calories.

Really? So we could return to the beginning of the 1900s when heroin was sold as a cough suppressant? I mean, as long as it suppresses the cough which it says it's going to do, it's acceptable, right? Or let's not forget the cocaine in Coca-Cola. If it says it wakes you up and it does, it should be sold, right?

Hey why the fuck not? a lil coke in my coke cant be worse than all that high fructose corn syrup. and if heroin helps my cough sure? the real problem with heroin and crack cocaine is the short intense high that users get. If drinkin a coke really just woke you up, and wasn't like snortin a couple 8-balls then why not? if the heroin cough supressent didn't give you horrible withdrawls, and it worked why not?

Yep. If I want to ingest an unsafe drug I should be permitted to do so. We mark poison and I can ingest it if I like at my own risk.Well, it seems to me to be a minor complaint that you have. I still disagree, though, because if you allow anything to be legal (such as a dangerous chemical), you have more of it than if it's illegal. And if you have more of it, there's a chance that it will be found in more products than just the one marked "poison." And, of course, since cigarette companies can get away with not listing their ingredient lists, it's reasonable to assume that other companies can do the same thing.


Ridiculous. Technically I can get calories from just about anything and get more nutrition than candy and sodas. You gain almost nothing from empty calories and you could easily make a case that heroin offers more benefits than empty calories.Go for it, make a case that heroin is better for you than empty calories.

[Drkadrkistan]Hey why the fuck not? a lil coke in my coke cant be worse than all that high fructose corn syrup. and if heroin helps my cough sure? the real problem with heroin and crack cocaine is the short intense high that users get. If drinkin a coke really just woke you up, and wasn't like snortin a couple 8-balls then why not? if the heroin cough supressent didn't give you horrible withdrawls, and it worked why not?[/quote]Well, I agree that high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy, but to say it's worse than cocaine is a stretch.
Furthermore, there are two real problems with heroin and crack cocaine. The first is, as you've said, they give you a high. The second is that they're addictive. We don't need more addictive products out there, there are too many as it is.

I know you're quite busy, responding to multiple posts at once, but please take the time to read and understand my responses before you answer them. The above makes the assumption that I attacked Fire Stations as legitimate functions of government, which I haven't done.

I didn't assume any such thing. I pointed out that less neighboorhoods burn down because of fire departments being around and you disagreed - saying that fire departments don't prevent fires. I demonstrated that, while fire departments don't prevent fires, they do prevent the spread of fires that do start, thus resulting in less widespread destruction do to fires. I never once made any assumption that you were anti-fire department.

Not if you're generating a respectable pool of people who want you dead/injured/robbed/maimed or what-have you. Hon, I'm an Objectivist for Christ's sake, and I'm here to tell you that this is a ridiculous oversimplification. Simply put, if you generate your wealth using unscrupulous tactics , you gather more hatred than wealth. All it takes is one person to act on it and all of a sudden you're 6 feet under.

Of course, if you are rich, bodyguards aren't hard to find. People willing to find anyone plotting to kill you/trying to get close to you aren't hard to find. This could go 'round and 'round. People weigh the risks on their own. You obviously think that having people wanting to kill you is reason enough not to do something to harm other people. However, there are obviously those who don't agree.

Plan B. Enough said.

Plan B is available. It is currently being evaluated to determine if it is safe enough to be available OTC (I think it is, but I'm just one person - and I don't work for the FDA).

Still, the reason you're hearing about all this is because it's [i]news: you're hearing about it because it doesn't happen often. People don't try to sell shit like this every day,

Could that, perchance, have something to do with the fact that there are legal consequences if you do sell it?

and fewer of us are stupid enough to buy it than you'd probably like to think.

You are an educated person. When you hear scientific jargon, you don't simply assume that the person with the white coat on knows what he is talking about. A large number of people, however, do make that assumption - especially when they are desparate. If the person seems to have credentials and uses "big" words, they assume the person must know what they are talking about. The phenomenon has even been studied from a sociological POV.

What type of dumbasses would buy a product like that...


Oh yeah, the AMERICANS!
What is it with ppl from your region!!!? Ye're all very anti american today.
This is the 3rd thread I've been on in 10 minutes and one of your regioners has made a gag at america!

I didn't assume any such thing. I pointed out that less neighboorhoods burn down because of fire departments being around and you disagreed - saying that fire departments don't prevent fires. I demonstrated that, while fire departments don't prevent fires, they do prevent the spread of fires that do start, thus resulting in less widespread destruction do to fires. I never once made any assumption that you were anti-fire department.

Then what are we arguing about? Are you honestly trying to tell me that the FDA is more vital or even as vital as something like an emergency fire service? They're hardly analgous in function, since a Fire Department doesn't regulate anything beyind the fire they're trying to put out. The FDA regulates behavior and general conduct, i.e. it regulates how people interact or trade; this doesn't happen with something like a fire unless we're talking about arson. Even then, the investigation of said arson is not within the jurisdiction of the local Fire Department.

That said, I don't happen to think that the elimination of tax-funded fire departments would instantly cause every city in the nation to burn down. People love to ask what would happen if private firefighters charged a million dollars to put out a fire, but that isn't economically feasable given the frequency of their occurance.

Of course, if you are rich, bodyguards aren't hard to find. People willing to find anyone plotting to kill you/trying to get close to you aren't hard to find. This could go 'round and 'round. People weigh the risks on their own.
Obviously you missed this the first time, since it already answers to this and was in fact contained about a half an inch below the portion of my post that you chose to respond to.

Surely you're aware of all those 'miracle' cure peddlers of last century since you seemed quite eager to invoke them here. Tell me.... do you happen to know what happened to those people? I'll give you a hint: most were killed or severely beaten.

You obviously think that having people wanting to kill you is reason enough not to do something to harm other people. However, there are obviously those who don't agree.
Close, but no cigar. I think that the fact that it's just wrong is reason enough not to do something to harm other people. The fact that people will want to kill him/her/me/it is a consequence of that fact.

Plan B is available. It is currently being evaluated to determine if it is safe enough to be available OTC (I think it is, but I'm just one person - and I don't work for the FDA).
Yes it's available, but the only reason it's not OTC yet is because of the god damned Republicans and their incessant "moral" objections . Plan B has, to my knowledge, been cleared for OTC purchase and sale, but congress keeps pressuring the FDA to stall, and they appear to be more than happy to oblige. The cheif complaint [if I'm understanding correctly, politicians can be hard to follow] is that [i]the instructions may not be easy to understand by 17 year old girls. Instructions? Teenage girls are far from the most intelligent demographic that I can think of, but I'd tend to imagine that if we can trust them with over a ton of machinery on any national highway, we can trust them to learn how to read the back of a god damned pill box.

Could that, perchance, have something to do with the fact that there are legal consequences if you do sell it?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But then again, it looks like this guy went ahead and did it anyway, no?

You are an educated person. When you hear scientific jargon, you don't simply assume that the person with the white coat on knows what he is talking about. A large number of people, however, do make that assumption - especially when they are desparate. If the person seems to have credentials and uses "big" words, they assume the person must know what they are talking about. The phenomenon has even been studied from a sociological POV.
That's fine and you know what? It's not my problem. I should not face monetary penalties for the intellectual shortcomings of others.

There, I said it.

Then what are we arguing about? Are you honestly trying to tell me that the FDA is more vital or even as vital as something like an emergency fire service?

Yes, actually.

They're hardly analgous in function, since a Fire Department doesn't regulate anything beyind the fire they're trying to put out.

Actually, it does. The fire deparment regulates, for instance, what sorts of events can be held in a building, or how many people can be allowed in a building, or what permits you need to do something that increases the risk of fire.

That said, I don't happen to think that the elimination of tax-funded fire departments would instantly cause every city in the nation to burn down. People love to ask what would happen if private firefighters charged a million dollars to put out a fire, but that isn't economically feasable given the frequency of their occurance.

We have an example of what happens with private fire departments. Some people pay them, others don't. The fire department will only save a house that is paid for. So three, four houses in a poor neighboorhood are just watched as they burn down. It is only after they spread to a house that the particular fire department has been paid for that they start trying to put it out. Of course, at that point, the fire is so large it is out of control. Hence, the Chicago fire.

Close, but no cigar. I think that the fact that it's just wrong is reason enough not to do something to harm other people.

Good, you are a better person than many.

Yes it's available, but the only reason it's not OTC yet is because of the god damned Republicans and their incessant "moral" objections . Plan B has, to my knowledge, been cleared for OTC purchase and sale, but congress keeps pressuring the FDA to stall, and they appear to be more than happy to oblige. The cheif complaint [if I'm understanding correctly, politicians can be hard to follow] is that [i]the instructions may not be easy to understand by 17 year old girls. Instructions? Teenage girls are far from the most intelligent demographic that I can think of, but I'd tend to imagine that if we can trust them with over a ton of machinery on any national highway, we can trust them to learn how to read the back of a god damned pill box.

Taken too often, Plan B can be dangerous to the health of a woman. Of course, so can aspirin, etc. Like I said, I think it should be and will be OTC. However, I would have no problem at all with a requirement that you get it from the pharmacist and the pharmacist is required to explain to you exactly what it does.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But then again, it looks like this guy went ahead and did it anyway, no?

But, like you said, it is rare. Before the FDA, it was far from rare - it was an incredibly common thing. There will always be those who break the law, but there are those who will refrain from doing something if it may hold immediate consequences for them - and that describes most people.

In order to market something as a drug, the FDA must approve it. This guy is marketing a drug without approval - thus doing something illegal. Had he gone through the correct procedures, then all of the tests would have been required and the data examined.
Okay, what's your point? Had the fraud followed proper legal procedures, he wouldn't have been able to push his fraudulent product?

Wow, what an insight! So we need the FDA around in case criminals wish to turn themselves in?
They are reactionary in this case is a case of fraud. Of course, if we didn't have FDA regulations at all, this wouldn't be fraud - it would be the free market at work.
Claim: It only kills cancer cells!
Fact: It melts your face off.

Yup, that's fraud. And it doesn't have anything to do with what the FDA says or approves of.

In this case, the FDA hasn't done anything more than the normal legal system could have accomplished, except that it wasted more money in the end. And your "Well, the FDA is good because frauds that follow the legal process for verification get caught!" opinion is completely useless, as frauds will simply not follow the law.

Claim: It only kills cancer cells!
Fact: It melts your face off.

Yup, that's fraud. And it doesn't have anything to do with what the FDA says or approves of.

In this case, the FDA hasn't done anything more than the normal legal system could have accomplished, except that it wasted more money in the end. And your "Well, the FDA is good because frauds that follow the legal process for verification get caught!" opinion is completely useless, as frauds will simply not follow the law.

I was going to write another lengthy response, but this post sums my feelings on the matter up in what probably ended up being a much more concise form than I would have used. The bottom line here is that the FDA rarely if ever earns its keep by performing functions that some other government agency couldn't already do.

Okay, what's your point? Had the fraud followed proper legal procedures, he wouldn't have been able to push his fraudulent product?

Wow, what an insight! So we need the FDA around in case criminals wish to turn themselves in?

No, my dear. We need the FDA to ensure that proper testing is done on a product and that it does what it claims to do. And, because of the regulations placed by the laws that make up the FDA regulations, a person selling an untested and thus non-approved drug is committing a crime.

Claim: It only kills cancer cells!
Fact: It melts your face off.

Supposition: The cancer must have spread into that much of your face.

Without testing, we can't demonstrate that this supposition is untrue.

And your "Well, the FDA is good because frauds that follow the legal process for verification get caught!" opinion is completely useless, as frauds will simply not follow the law.

I never expressed any such opinion. I simply pointed out that the FDA restrictions on testing prevent many unsafe products from ever getting to the market. It isn't that the given company is looking to commit fraud, it is that they can't know what a product does for sure until they do proper testing.