''(2) Nothing in subsection (b) shall derogate from the duties of the Secretary of State or from the duties of the United States Trade Representative as set forth in section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171). ''(3) Nothing in subsection (b) shall derogate from the duties and functions of the Register of Copyrights or otherwise alter current authorities relating to copyright matters. ''(4) In exercising the Director's powers under paragraphs (3) and (4)(A) of subsection (b), the Director shall consult with the Administrator of General Services.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Most heads of major government agencies have some form of similar power to request and use various domestic and foreign government resources if (with APPROVAL) he sees a need to do so.
Trudel likes to call the Director a czar, but I really fail to see how his power can really be abused. Sure, an evil Director could try and move the PTO's offices off-shore (for whatever reasons which I cannot fathom at the moment), but then he'd be violating these clauses in the bill, wouldn't he?
I really think this thing is being blown way out of proportion. Lots of directors of lots of agencies, can, with some form of consent, do far worse things than what is allowed here, yet they don't. Firstly, people placed into positions of this nature do not tend to be secretly evil and wish to take over the country. Secondly, our government still has oversight. The president can remove the guy from office, congress can pass legislation removing him from office, etc., etc. This isn't a constitutional amendment.
I've never even *seen* a case that didn't have sharp edges placed in at least one easy-to-dice location.
The place I have the hardest time on cases is the openings for the expansion cards out the back of the case. If I'm trying to pull a card out I get into the habit of bracing my hand against the back, or pushing on the card *through* the back slot. Once it pulls free, slllllllliiiiiiice.
I realize this -- I totally agree that this type of thing is what we should be fighting. I was just saying that other uses (such as patenting or copyrighting original creations) should be protected.
I have no trouble with companies wanting to keep information about genetic code they've sequenced secret. They should be able to license the information any way they see fit (it's their information after all), but that should never hamper another organization's efforts to sequence the same genetic information and make it available or use it independently how *they* see fit.
Patents are not the way to go with naturally occurring genetic sequences. I agree 100%.
So I can invent the spiffy method before you, and I can put it into say, GnuPG. I can keep using it, but you still get your patent for all commercial purposes.
(As you seem to already be familiar with the bill, mainly this message is intended for everyone else that's reading this thread, not necessarily you.) This is correct. You cannot be sued for patent infringement if you're a non-profit and continue using the patented subject matter in the same capacity, BUT that doesn't mean the patent can't still be ruled invalid.
You can still counter-sue (or if the bill passes, just send a letter to the PTO with all of the relevant documentation) and get the patent invalidated on the basis of prior art.
The law *does* indicate, however, that a patent cannot be deemed invalid based solely on a person's successful use of this defense. (Though I'm sure a decision like that would help the PTO along in their own decision.)
One thing I think embedded Linux variants have going for them is the *standardization*. If you leave one embedded hardware project and go to work for another one, you probably have to learn a new embedded OS complete with its own behaviors. If there was something like Linux (or ELKS, whatever) to standardize upon, it would be easy to move between projects and port *applications* between embedded devices.
Someone else mentioned QNX, and this is sort of the same thing. QNX is very multi-purpose, lots of embedded developers are familiar with it, but it doesn't quite have the hacking/open-source "base" that a Linux-derivative would have.
Though I essentially agree that it doesn't make immediate sense to try and strip down something designed for a PC and make it work in an embedded system. It does seem logical to try and build something small and fast (while working in whatever Linux compatibility, compliance and even bits of code that you need) from the start.
But at this point, there's already lots of embedded Linux work underway (and in cases, completed), so at this point it seems best to use what we've already got.
I don't believe information gleamed from sequencing a chunk of genetic code should be patentable.
What I'm talking about *is* the unique creation of a sequence of genetic code. Take some basic (un-patentable and naturally occuring) genetic sequences and put them together to construct a unique and useful genetic code, or, if you're the adventurous sort, code the base pairs by hand. THAT should be something patentable.
This is exactly like writing software. You take known building blocks (while loops, procedural calls) that can be individually broken down to known, simple, obvious components, and put them together to create a program that has a specific functional use.
Now that I give it some more thought, maybe this should fall more under the realm of copyright law instead of patent law?
I meant to hit preview, and our proxy server at work came back with an error, so I assumed it hadn't been posted, so I preview, fix it, come back, and they're both here.
Title I - Inventors' Rights Basically protects inventors from those shady late-night TV commercials promoting "invention" services, where you sign your inventions over to them for the purposes of "evaluating" and "promoting" it, and they keep the patents, royalties, etc.
This is a good thing.
Title II - First Inventor Defense Protects an inventor from patent infringement charges if the original inventor brought the subject matter to practical use at least a year before the filing of the other guy's patent and used the patent commercially at some point prior to the filing.
It seems to me like this kinda matches my own interpretation of what "prior art" was, but maybe not. Maybe this just makes it more explicit.
Title III - Patent Term Guarantee Very basically, if the patent office is butt-slow in getting your patent approved, your patent term is adjusted accordingly.
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I guess in the past your patent term began when you filed the patent? So I guess here you get extra days for every day the patent office is unnecessarily slow in getting it processed. Maybe someone has a better analysis.
Title IV - United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad Presumably this is where all of the fuss occurs. Unfortunately, it's very hard to read for me, and makes extensive references to the various patent treaties.
My understanding is this: Patents are generally published/made available to foreign countries after 18 months. You can request that it be made available earlier, or, if you're not filing patents in a different country, you can request that it not be published at all. If you do file patents in other countries, presumably treaties require these patent applications to be shared between member countries after 18 months.
I think this is what some people are angry about. I don't know the rationale behind the sharing of applications, so maybe somebody else can step up and elaborate for us? I guess by publishing these patent applications, anyone in another country where the patent holder isn't planning on applying for a patent could then in turn patent it himself. Anybody in a country where the US patent wouldn't be legal could use the information in the patent for his own good. I may be totally off-base here, but that's how I read it. Corrections are welcome.
Title V - Patent Litigation Reduction Act (I like it already) Anybody can write the patent office with a request for re-examination, citing examples of prior art. Their letter will become an official part of the patent, and the patent office must make a determination (whether or not to re-examine) within 3 months. The requester gets copies of the progress.
Title VI - Patent and Trademark Office This takes up about half of the actual bill. Since I'm not totally familiar with the current structure of the PTO, this could either be a lot of re-wording, or (more likely) a complete restructuring of the office itself. Note that this seems to only apply to the PTO office/organization. It doesn't have anything to do with the types of patents issued, but how they do their day-to-day business, how they evaluate their staff, and pick their work force.
But most importantly, the bill includes wording to bring the PTO out of the dark ages. They're given permission to make use of whatever equipment and technology they need (like broadband) and lets them hire their examiners more competitively.
Title I - Inventors' Rights Basically protects inventors from those shady late-night TV commercials promoting "invention" services, where you sign your inventions over to them for the purposes of "evaluating" and "promoting" it, and they keep the patents, royalties, etc.
This is a good thing.
Title II - First Inventor Defense Protects an inventor from patent infringement charges if the original inventor brought the subject matter to practical use at least a year before the filing of the other guy's patent and used the patent commercially at some point prior to the filing.
It seems to me like this kinda matches my own interpretation of what "prior art" was, but maybe not. Maybe this just makes it more explicit.
Title III - Patent Term Guarantee Very basically, if the patent office is butt-slow in getting your patent approved, your patent term is adjusted accordingly.
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I guess in the past your patent term began when you filed the patent? So I guess here you get extra days for every day the patent office is unnecessarily slow in getting it processed. Maybe someone has a better analysis.
Title IV - United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad Presumably this is where all of the fuss occurs. Unfortunately, it's very hard to read for me, and makes extensive references to the various patent treaties.
My understanding is this: Patents are generally published/made available to foreign countries after 18 months. You can request that it be made available earlier, or, if you're not filing patents in a different country, you can request that it not be published at all. If you do file patents in other countries, presumably treaties require these patent applications to be shared between member countries after 18 months.
I think this is what some people are angry about. I don't know the rationale behind the sharing of applications, so maybe somebody else can step up and elaborate for us? I guess by publishing these patent applications, anyone in another country where the patent holder isn't planning on applying for a patent could then in turn patent it himself. Anybody in a country where the US patent wouldn't be legal could use the information in the patent for his own good. I may be totally off-base here, but that's how I read it. Corrections are welcome.
Title V - Patent Litigation Reduction Act (I like it already) Anybody can write the patent office with a request for re-examination, citing examples of prior art. Their letter will become an official part of the patent, and the patent office must make a determination (whether or not to re-examine) within 3 months. The requester gets copies of the progress.
Title VI - Patent and Trademark Office This takes up about half of the actual bill. Since I'm not totally familiar with the current structure of the PTO, this could either be a lot of re-wording, or (more likely) a complete restructuring of the office itself. Note that this seems to only apply to the PTO office/organization. It doesn't have anything to do with the types of patents issued, but how they do their day-to-day business, how they evaluate their staff, and pick their work force.
But most importantly, the bill includes wording to bring the PTO out of the dark ages. They're given permission to make use of whatever equipment and technology they need (like broadband) and lets them hire their examiners more competitively.
As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between genetic code and computer software (in this context) is that one program is run by biological mechanisms and the other by electronic ones.
Lots of people have been clammoring for the complete abolishment of all software patents, which I don't fully agree with. I think that this system needs a lot of work, and the number of software patents issued needs to be limited (at least) to truly unique, novel algorithms, not silly UI "innovations." Someone mentioned wavelets as an example of what I would consider patentable.
Genetic code should share these limitations, with the additional protection against genetic code found in nature. Of course then what happens when somebody develops a cool checksum/redundancy technique to resist mutation, they receive a patent, and then later on someone else discovers that technique being used elsewhere in nature? Is the patent revoked? Limited? Have there already been discussions or precedents relating to this?
I'm almost exactly the opposite. If the ambient light in the room doesn't approach the "white" on my monitor, my eyes bother me and I get headaches more easily.
I also really prefer incandescent light to fluorescents. Before I moved to an office with a window, I made them take out the overhead fluorescents and get me a halogen lamp. Today I have an office with a window view (and lots of *natural* light, the best of all).
Low light is great for me, so long as I'm not sitting at a computer. When I am, I much prefer a well-lit environment.
Firstly, legOS is a really cool project. They've totally re-written the firmware for the RCX and built a fully pre-emptive multitasking environment running programs you can write in C or C++ and compile with a gcc cross-compiler. Very cool stuff, though the networking support (IR) doesn't seem very usable just yet.
NQC uses the standard firmware I believe, and is a bit more solidified. You write programs in a pseudo-C language and compile/upload it using the NQC utility. It also has some good IR message passing abilities.
Information about both of these can be found at LUGNET in the robotics section.
I experimented with LegOS a while back but ended up using NQC and a bunch of server-side Perl to build myself a telerobotic camera mount for my webcam.
There are definitely tools available out there for some extremely flexible Mindstorms programming.
Not having massive regulatory bodies does not mean that companies can get away with selling dangerous products.
This is precisely what prescription drugs are, though. They've been deemed dangerous and are not permitted to be sold unless you have the written permission of a doctor. They've been classified this way because the FDA has determined that the average citizen is neither responsible nor resourceful enough to make a determination as to the safety of this drug with respects to their own unique situation.
With respects to my views on marijuana, I really don't have much of an opinion. If it were up to me, tobacco would be banned right along with it, but that's not going to happen, so I wouldn't have much of a problem decriminilzing marijuana use for consistency if nothing else.
A huge number of people die of heart disease every year, many of whom could probably have been saved
Better diets and exercise are fundamental changes in a person's lifestyle. Prohibiting the use of certain drugs or mandating alternatives doesn't quite seem in the same ball park to me as requiring all everyone to have an hour of exercise a day.
My point is that once you start passing "for your own good" laws how do you decide where to stop?
I believe we already have. Laws requiring prescriptions aren't exactly new things. This article is about legislation setting federal standards that are already in sync with existing state laws. We're not passing any more "for your own good" laws, we're just making it possible for the FDA to step in in inter-state drug sales and set guidelines as to quality and keep the pharmacies honest and legal.
If some idiot is going to randomly combine 17 prescriptions...
It doesn't take 17. All it takes is 1 or 2 slightly ill-researched prescriptions to cause significant harm. If people were really confident in their abilities to research their own drug purchases, why are these drugs being classified as prescription drugs in the first place? Why are they not "over the counter"? The FDA has concluded (quite logically and fairly, in my opinion) that most people cannot or will not be able to do their own research on drugs that meet this level of risk.
I'm not trying to say everyone is going to go out and start buying prescription drugs at will. I'm thinking instead of the lower-class or undereducated families that can not necessarily afford to see a doctor. If drugs were freely available without a prescription, these people are significantly less likely to even try to see a doctor, and will instead rely on word of mouth for their prescription drug choices. This can't be good. In order to survive like this, one would have to become an expert in prescription drugs, which few people are going to do.
If people are going to take a drug without either professional advice or the information to make their own decision, that is their own responsibility.
What I'm trying to say is that people WILL be taking drugs without adequate information on the risks. There is no possible way someone is going to be able to do all of the research necessary to be sure that a given drug will not affect them adversely, either in concert with another drug they're taking or an ailment, disease or other defect. In fact, people are going to be MORE likely to be influenced by marketing and word-of-mouth than by any degree of research they will be able to do, which (as I'm sure you'll agree) is not the safest way to do your prescription drug shopping.
The only way someone can be relatively sure that they a) need a prescription drug at all and b) know that the drug they need will be safe for them to use (or get an alternative), will be to either consult a doctor, or to utilize some yet-to-be invented computer system that can diagnose illnesses and predict risks imparted by taking a drug or a series of drugs. Sounds like a robotic doctor to me.
I guarantee you that if legislation were dropped requiring a doctor's prescription that there would be a tremendous buying frenzy of prescription drugs that people do not need. There will also be a *significant* increase in the number of ailments, overdoses and deaths that will be a direct result of people purchasing prescription drugs without adequate knowledge or research as to how these drugs are to be used.
It's not a simple matter of convenience here. It sounds like some of you don't want prescriptions simply because you want to get access to drugs that a doctor will not prescribe for you. Chances are, he has a VERY good reason for not prescribing those drugs for you.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I do see where you're coming from, and in an ideal world, yes, I would imagine everyone would have the means and opportunity to do their own research on drugs and have the maturity and faith in their own bodies to know when they do and do not need to use those drugs, but this is far from an ideal world. People's lives are regularly being destroyed as the result of addictive drugs, and removing the requirement for safeguards such as the current prescription drug system will only serve to hurt people.
The scenereo was specifically of a drug that was fraudulently marketed.
...as are crack, cocaine, and other narcotics. There'll always be people out to make a quick buck by not disclosing all of the truth, or outright lying. I was pointing out that, despite laws forbidding this, drug dealers are still out on the streets selling drugs to people that may or may not know the risks. Should we be placing the blame on the users, the dealers, the manufacturers? A combination of both? Or is there no blame at all?
People still have a responsibility to check if what they're about to ingest is safe.
What would you consider a 'responsible check'? How much research must one do before they cease to be irresponsible and become responsible?
Now realize that if we move to a free market, where anyone can pick up any drug they wanted, those that make and sell dangerous drugs are probably going to want to hide a few things here and there, or downplay some risks. That may make it a bit more difficult for someone doing a cursory check on the risks associated with a drug to come up with something that changes their mind. If the company is good at obfuscating the risks, the average person is neither going to understand or recognize the significance of what their research has turned up.
Now who's to blame? The user for not being in the top tenth percentile of educated people, or the manufacturer for listening more to their marketing people than their scientists?
Since both are readily available, I don't see your point.
Just because a law is 90% effective does not mean it's a useless law. Stamping out the law will allow a sort of equilibreum to be established, between the makers and sellers of harmful substances and the users of those substances, each with varying degrees of education about the risks of those substances.
The idea is to prevent people that don't know any better from using something known to be harmful and addicting.
It costs nothing to go to a public library.
Are you really suggesting that everyone go to the public library every time they feel a desire to go out and get some prescription drug for some random ailment they've just noticed?
How many people are going to do that? I'll probably round my estimates to the nearest whole number and say zero.
In a world where people were free to choose what drugs they take, pharmacists would probably want to keep a good amount of information on hand in order to serve their customers
They'll probably only do so if/when it helps them to earn money. I imagine "hole-in-the-wall" type online pharmacies would have plenty of business without wanting or needing to set up information centers for people to research the drugs they're wanting to buy. I'd say the majority of prescription drug purchases are for refills or drugs that the person is probably going to be taking for the rest of their life. Why go to a pricey pharmacy when you can find one that doesn't have to spend money on education, training and offering research material and can get you a much better deal?
So now that we've established that these places will exist, why would a mother on welfare supporting 5 kids want to even start her drug shopping at a classy place to begin with? Chances are, one of her friends has told her she needs to give her kid drug X and Y to clear up two symptoms, so she does goes to Cheap-Ass Pharmacy and orders those drugs. As Cheap-Ass Pharmacy has no reference material (not that she'd take the time to read it anyways), she does not know that drugs X and Y are mutually exclusive and will cause certain death if mixed. Oh damn. Is it her own fault then? Does her kid deserve what he got? What if it's something more benign.. let's say the kid has some kidney disorder that would make drug X potentially lethal, but the mother of course doesn't know this. A doctor would be able to check for this disorder before prescribing drug X. Is it the mother's fault for not knowing this?
government does not need to protect people from themselves. I realize that some people won't be able to handle that.
You're right, because it's been shown time and time again that people are NOT smart enough to be able to survive in this world without some laws designed to protect them from their own stupidity. Look in your home, on the backs of appliances, on the tags on your furniture, on the very plastic bags that these things were shipped in. How many different and distinct warning labels do you see? Every one of those warning labels was brought about because somebody was too stupid to care for himself.
I agree in that I'd like to see the government regulating less than it currently is, but I firmly believe that existing laws regarding the need for prescriptions before drugs can be given are quite necessary and inconsequential. I've probably been prescribed drugs 2 or 3 times in my life, and every time it's been the result of me going to see a doctor. If people are so adament that they be allowed to get potentially dangerous drugs without needing a prescription, what exactly do they need these drugs for? Common sense says to get a doctor to investigate your latest ailment, not to try and diagnose it on your own, yet that seems to be what people are shooting for here, and I don't quite understand why. Under what circumstances would you ever need a prescription drug (versus an OTC drug) without going to see a doctor?
It's easy to generalize a story, thus making pretty much any topic that fits in that generalization "on-topic."
The story is about legislation giving the US federal government jurisdiction over the licensing and monitoring of Internet pharmacies. It is not about whether all drugs should be made free and legal. I'm not here to debate this with you, but I think it's safe to say the vast, vast majority of Americans disagrees with this standpoint, so it's highly unlikely you will live to see your views realized. Of course, I'm not saying you shouldn't continue with your protests. By all means, continue. I'll just be dropping out of the discussion now.
Whoever committed fraud by claiming that it was a safe drug, and by marketing something so dangerous without adequate warnings, would be mostly to blame
Wow, you're right. Those damn drug dealers. Let's put them in jail!
But the people who took it without bothering to look up any information on the drug are also to blame for their own recklessness.
Right-o. Those kids hooked on crack deserved what they got. Let 'em sit in misery for the rest of their life. But gods, no, let's not blame the drug or the maker.
I hope you're not saying that any real drug, illegal or legal, is nearly that addictive.
It's all about scale. There are *plenty* of OTC and prescription drugs that are addictive in nature, but *how* addictive is one factor in many in determining how a drug should be classified. Drugs with a high-degree of addictibility tend to be made illegal, sometimes regardless of their medicinal value.
If people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, it's because of two reasons.
Perhaps. Without these laws, however, how many more people would be addicted to narcotics? Cigarettes? How many people would -- due entirely to their own mistake -- die or become severely ill due to an improperly researched drug purchase?
Is it worth it for people to be permitted to purchase recreational drugs (which is what they would be -- after all, this whole thing is about getting drugs a doctor won't prescribe for you, right?) if it means a substantial increase in death and illness for people that either don't have the time nor the money to do research?
If a drug company lies about their products, they are guilty of fraud and will eventually be facing a huge class-action suit.
Who said anything about lying? All they have to do is down-play certain side effects, like, say, a 10% incidence of heart failure. You think people always read the fine print? What if there were no requirement for the fine print at all?
Since you believe government should be protecting us from ourselves, shall I assume you support bans on tobacco, alcohol, fried foods, and skiing?
I think that our current regulations on tobacco and alcohol are sufficient. The places where these regulations are weak can be made up by strong parenting.
The remainder of your examples are not remotely in the same class and unworthy of a response.
If people are incompetent to run their own lives, how can they be competent to elect leaders to run their lives for them?
There's a bit of difference between electing leaders and getting a doctor's advice regarding prescription medication.
Continuing with your analogy, though, how many people do you know honestly do any research into the candidates up for office? How many simply vote with the party?
If we had no prescription requirements, we would have as many prescription drug commercials as we have beer commercials. People would be watching the commercials, saying to themselves, "Hey, I have that problem," and flocking to their nearest drug store to pump themselves full of medication. Do people really read the warning labels on a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of beer? Do you think they're going to read the warnings on the box of medication? How many of these people are going to die because they didn't know drug X had a strong reaction with drug Y?
How can you possibly guarantee that people are going to be *able* to have enough information to make an informed decision about what drugs are safe to take and which are not? It's not like alcohol and tobacco here, where we have two distinct items that are quite heavily regulated and impressions firmly stamped in every American's brain about the effects. The variety of prescription drugs and the endless ways that these drugs interact and behave make it impossible to regulate them like we do alcohol and tobacco.
Should it be the user's fault that he's killed because he only did 2 minute's worth of research on a drug instead of 3, where he'd have discovered that the drug causes instant death in people that only have one kidney?
Few people are stupid about all things. Even fewer are smart about all things. Most everyone is smart about certain things, and not-so-smart about everything else. Doctors are smart about the human body and the drugs we put into it, thus it's only logical to trust them with these decisions. We're not talking about wristwatch preferences here. A very trivial mistake with a prescription drug can easily spell death.
And remember that there *is* such a thing as an over-the-counter drug. These are drugs that are either of low potency or deemed to have few if any ill-effects. If a drug is classified as a prescription drug, it's been classified that way for a reason. If you think the FDA is full of idiots, perhaps it's time you wrote some letters and got them all fired. I mean it's not like any of them have degrees or doctorates in any of this stuff. Maybe they'll be kind enough to hire you in their place. I'm sure we'll all be better off.
I was kind of thinking off alone in the middle of a feild where noone is around.
And as far as I know, this is perfectly legal. I think the original poster was thinking from my frame of reference, in a quiet neighborhood.
Should we require prescriptions for those too? perhaps ban the sale of them?
How about require the makers of these items to disclose all known health risks and to put serious restrictions on their methods of advertising. And while we're at it, limit the purchases of these things to people that are 18 or 21 years old, so we can be sure they're old enough to make an informed decision on their own.
I suppose we could do exactly the same thing for all prescription drugs, but the resources required to not only put this into effect, but to monitor and ensure full disclosure and compliance on the parts of the makers of prescription drugs would be prohibitive. As prescription drugs tend to be individually things the average person knows little about (unlike alcohol and tobacco, which are quite common), it makes more sense to entrust a certain class of people with the tasks of learning the details about when certain drugs should be used, how they're used, how they're not to be used, and acceptable, less-risky alternatives, and require that class of people to give their consent before these items are given to the general public.
I see nothing wrong with a brothel. As long as they keep quiet, why not?
OK, aside from the fact that we'd have to get rid of most commercial zoning laws as well as laws banning prostitution (each independently having merits outside of this situation), your argument is that what one does in the privacy of his own home is acceptable. So when does a building cease to become a home and start to become a place of business? Or does it matter? In my opinion, by opening up his doors to customers looking for sex, that place ceases to become simply a private home. While I don't entirely disagree with your point of view here, I would rather not see my neighbor's house turn into a brothel simply because it would attract all sorts of unsavory people and attention to my neighborhood and generally cause me headaches. I'd say let's make this more of a community law/ordinance, but I think for the most part, it already is.
I am firmly against the idea that the government should have any say in what people can or can not do in the privacy of their own home, or with other consenting adults (ie using drugs, paying for sex).
This is moving out off of the topic at hand, but let me ask you this:
Let's say I invent a drug X that, given a single dose, mimics the effects of alcohol while having an extremely addicting effect on the taker. So addicting, in fact, that one dose is sufficient to addict an adult in such a way that 99% of the people that take it begin taking it regularly. This drug is "marketed" as a quick, safe high by the dealers and quickly spreads.
So you think a substance like this should be allowed to be created and sold? All of the people that end up taking this drug, whether or not they know about its addictive effects, deserve to be hooked on it? And when prices go up tenfold, they deserve to have their bank accounts drained paying for a steady supply? Or do you think they should just "suck it up," "bite the bullet" and check into rehab? Overcoming a drug addiction of a severe magnitude is not a pretty or painless thing. Did they have it coming?
Now, I'm not saying that all illegal drugs have these types of effects, but there are plenty that do. It all boils down to the fact that people today have a need to be protected from their own ignorance and stupidity. To suggest that everyone is capable of making educated, informed decisions about everything that will affect their life is naive.
Now I'm a firm believer in Darwinian natural selection. I do not feel we need to spend so much money and time keeping the stupid people in our country alive and healthy. I do not, however, wish to see pharmaceutical companies marketing their prescription drugs like it were laundry detergent, and things are starting to move in this direction. I am pleased that we have doctors that are trained to know what drugs are required for specific situations and when those drugs can not and should not be used. If we eliminate this requirement, for doctors to give prescriptions for certain drugs, I shudder to think how many people will, incorrectly and sometimes fatally, turn to prescription drugs when they don't need them.
To be honest, it sounds like your beef is more with illegal drugs and how you feel drugs should be legalized entirely than with legislation of online prescription drug pharmacies, and this is out of the scope of this thread.
So should I be denied direct access to medication just because my next door neighbours are idiots? I think not.
Who said anything about denying you access to medication? If you can't seem to find a doctor willing to prescribe some medication for you, I think it's a safe bet to say that a) you don't need that medication; or b) it would be dangerous or lethal for you to use it.
You seem to have this horrible animosity towards doctors. I promise you doctors are in the business to keep you alive and healthy. If you disagree with that, that's your problem. If medical training and licensing requirements are really so terrible where you live, perhaps you should move.
All we need is the ability to stay fully informed about those risks
Bingo.
So let's say we eliminate most all laws that are set up to protect ourselves from our own ignorance and stupidity.
How would you keep people fully informed about decisions they're about to make? How would you counter misleading advertising? It's obvious to a doctor that drug X, despite being marketed on TV commercials as *the* cure for some ailment, is significantly more dangerous and less effective than drug Y. Does that not matter? How can you get information that the consumer will trust into those consumers' hands?
What happens when that information is faulty? If a doctor is negligent, we can blame him, but if there's a typo or incorrect cross-reference in some online information source that causes a naive reader to make a poor decision ending in his death, who's liable? Anyone?
What you seem to be advocating is a fundamental change in one of the major charges of government: to protect its citizens. That protection has tended to include protection from one's self.
I do not feel that a person of average (or even above-average) intelligence is capable of making fully informed, trustworthy decisions about *all* aspects of their life. It seems that you put more faith in the average person than I do.
Sure...if noone is anywhere nearby that could possibly be hit. Otherwise you are endangering others.
So by this I assume that you do not support statutes for things like "disturbing the peace"? If my neighbor started shooting all sorts of firearms in the air while my baby girl was trying to sleep, you can bet I'd be a bit angry, and there are laws on the books that makes this type of behavior illegal (at least in most cities).
One could argue that allowing a pharmacy to operate negligently or illegally is, in fact, "endangering others."
Why is it any of your buisness if they run a brothel?
So I guess then that you are also opposed to anti-prostitution legislation, and various zoning laws about where businesses and industries can be built? I personally love the fact that my neighbor can't tear down his house and replace it with a coal-burning factory that produces foul-smelling tires. Not to mention the fact that if my neighbor started up a brothel, the value of my home would probably drop quite a lot, but then that's why we have homeowners associations, yes? Or are you against them also?
Why not? Why is it you are so interested in what your neibor does in the privacy of his own home? Do you keep track of what he does...make sure he isn't having sex outside of marriage too?
I can't really tell if you're trying to have a legitimate argument here or if you're just trying to be annoying. It sounds like you're against all sorts of laws that are already in the books (in this case, laws against the production of illegal drugs)...
If you really have such a beef about these laws, perhaps you should try writing to your local legislature. I sincerely doubt these things will ever be legalized, so maybe it would be in your best interests to move to a lesser-developed country that doesn't have these laws. It sounds like you'd be happier there.
Slashdot Mirror
Also read sections 2(c)(2) through (4):
''(2) Nothing in subsection (b) shall derogate from the duties of the Secretary of State or from the duties of the United States Trade Representative as set forth in section 141 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171).
''(3) Nothing in subsection (b) shall derogate from the duties and functions of the Register of Copyrights or otherwise alter current authorities relating to copyright matters.
''(4) In exercising the Director's powers under paragraphs (3) and (4)(A) of subsection (b), the Director shall consult with the Administrator of General Services.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Most heads of major government agencies have some form of similar power to request and use various domestic and foreign government resources if (with APPROVAL) he sees a need to do so.
Trudel likes to call the Director a czar, but I really fail to see how his power can really be abused. Sure, an evil Director could try and move the PTO's offices off-shore (for whatever reasons which I cannot fathom at the moment), but then he'd be violating these clauses in the bill, wouldn't he?
I really think this thing is being blown way out of proportion. Lots of directors of lots of agencies, can, with some form of consent, do far worse things than what is allowed here, yet they don't. Firstly, people placed into positions of this nature do not tend to be secretly evil and wish to take over the country. Secondly, our government still has oversight. The president can remove the guy from office, congress can pass legislation removing him from office, etc., etc. This isn't a constitutional amendment.
I've never even *seen* a case that didn't have sharp edges placed in at least one easy-to-dice location.
The place I have the hardest time on cases is the openings for the expansion cards out the back of the case. If I'm trying to pull a card out I get into the habit of bracing my hand against the back, or pushing on the card *through* the back slot. Once it pulls free, slllllllliiiiiiice.
I realize this -- I totally agree that this type of thing is what we should be fighting. I was just saying that other uses (such as patenting or copyrighting original creations) should be protected.
I have no trouble with companies wanting to keep information about genetic code they've sequenced secret. They should be able to license the information any way they see fit (it's their information after all), but that should never hamper another organization's efforts to sequence the same genetic information and make it available or use it independently how *they* see fit.
Patents are not the way to go with naturally occurring genetic sequences. I agree 100%.
So I can invent the spiffy method before you, and I can put it into say, GnuPG. I can keep using it, but you still get your patent for all commercial purposes.
(As you seem to already be familiar with the bill, mainly this message is intended for everyone else that's reading this thread, not necessarily you.) This is correct. You cannot be sued for patent infringement if you're a non-profit and continue using the patented subject matter in the same capacity, BUT that doesn't mean the patent can't still be ruled invalid.
You can still counter-sue (or if the bill passes, just send a letter to the PTO with all of the relevant documentation) and get the patent invalidated on the basis of prior art.
The law *does* indicate, however, that a patent cannot be deemed invalid based solely on a person's successful use of this defense. (Though I'm sure a decision like that would help the PTO along in their own decision.)
One thing I think embedded Linux variants have going for them is the *standardization*. If you leave one embedded hardware project and go to work for another one, you probably have to learn a new embedded OS complete with its own behaviors. If there was something like Linux (or ELKS, whatever) to standardize upon, it would be easy to move between projects and port *applications* between embedded devices.
Someone else mentioned QNX, and this is sort of the same thing. QNX is very multi-purpose, lots of embedded developers are familiar with it, but it doesn't quite have the hacking/open-source "base" that a Linux-derivative would have.
Though I essentially agree that it doesn't make immediate sense to try and strip down something designed for a PC and make it work in an embedded system. It does seem logical to try and build something small and fast (while working in whatever Linux compatibility, compliance and even bits of code that you need) from the start.
But at this point, there's already lots of embedded Linux work underway (and in cases, completed), so at this point it seems best to use what we've already got.
I don't believe information gleamed from sequencing a chunk of genetic code should be patentable.
What I'm talking about *is* the unique creation of a sequence of genetic code. Take some basic (un-patentable and naturally occuring) genetic sequences and put them together to construct a unique and useful genetic code, or, if you're the adventurous sort, code the base pairs by hand. THAT should be something patentable.
This is exactly like writing software. You take known building blocks (while loops, procedural calls) that can be individually broken down to known, simple, obvious components, and put them together to create a program that has a specific functional use.
Now that I give it some more thought, maybe this should fall more under the realm of copyright law instead of patent law?
I meant to hit preview, and our proxy server at work came back with an error, so I assumed it hadn't been posted, so I preview, fix it, come back, and they're both here.
Sorry.
It's 116 pages in the PDF form from the Government Printing Office, but the letters are big and it's a quick read.
Title I - Inventors' Rights
Basically protects inventors from those shady late-night TV commercials promoting "invention" services, where you sign your inventions over to them for the purposes of "evaluating" and "promoting" it, and they keep the patents, royalties, etc.
This is a good thing.
Title II - First Inventor Defense
Protects an inventor from patent infringement charges if the original inventor brought the subject matter to practical use at least a year before the filing of the other guy's patent and used the patent commercially at some point prior to the filing.
It seems to me like this kinda matches my own interpretation of what "prior art" was, but maybe not. Maybe this just makes it more explicit.
Title III - Patent Term Guarantee
Very basically, if the patent office is butt-slow in getting your patent approved, your patent term is adjusted accordingly.
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I guess in the past your patent term began when you filed the patent? So I guess here you get extra days for every day the patent office is unnecessarily slow in getting it processed. Maybe someone has a better analysis.
Title IV - United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad
Presumably this is where all of the fuss occurs. Unfortunately, it's very hard to read for me, and makes extensive references to the various patent treaties.
My understanding is this: Patents are generally published/made available to foreign countries after 18 months. You can request that it be made available earlier, or, if you're not filing patents in a different country, you can request that it not be published at all. If you do file patents in other countries, presumably treaties require these patent applications to be shared between member countries after 18 months.
I think this is what some people are angry about. I don't know the rationale behind the sharing of applications, so maybe somebody else can step up and elaborate for us? I guess by publishing these patent applications, anyone in another country where the patent holder isn't planning on applying for a patent could then in turn patent it himself. Anybody in a country where the US patent wouldn't be legal could use the information in the patent for his own good. I may be totally off-base here, but that's how I read it. Corrections are welcome.
Title V - Patent Litigation Reduction Act (I like it already)
Anybody can write the patent office with a request for re-examination, citing examples of prior art. Their letter will become an official part of the patent, and the patent office must make a determination (whether or not to re-examine) within 3 months. The requester gets copies of the progress.
Title VI - Patent and Trademark Office
This takes up about half of the actual bill. Since I'm not totally familiar with the current structure of the PTO, this could either be a lot of re-wording, or (more likely) a complete restructuring of the office itself. Note that this seems to only apply to the PTO office/organization. It doesn't have anything to do with the types of patents issued, but how they do their day-to-day business, how they evaluate their staff, and pick their work force.
But most importantly, the bill includes wording to bring the PTO out of the dark ages. They're given permission to make use of whatever equipment and technology they need (like broadband) and lets them hire their examiners more competitively.
It's 116 pages in the PDF form from the Government Printing Office, but the letters are big and it's a quick read.
Title I - Inventors' Rights
Basically protects inventors from those shady late-night TV commercials promoting "invention" services, where you sign your inventions over to them for the purposes of "evaluating" and "promoting" it, and they keep the patents, royalties, etc.
This is a good thing.
Title II - First Inventor Defense
Protects an inventor from patent infringement charges if the original inventor brought the subject matter to practical use at least a year before the filing of the other guy's patent and used the patent commercially at some point prior to the filing.
It seems to me like this kinda matches my own interpretation of what "prior art" was, but maybe not. Maybe this just makes it more explicit.
Title III - Patent Term Guarantee
Very basically, if the patent office is butt-slow in getting your patent approved, your patent term is adjusted accordingly.
I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but I guess in the past your patent term began when you filed the patent? So I guess here you get extra days for every day the patent office is unnecessarily slow in getting it processed. Maybe someone has a better analysis.
Title IV - United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad
Presumably this is where all of the fuss occurs. Unfortunately, it's very hard to read for me, and makes extensive references to the various patent treaties.
My understanding is this: Patents are generally published/made available to foreign countries after 18 months. You can request that it be made available earlier, or, if you're not filing patents in a different country, you can request that it not be published at all. If you do file patents in other countries, presumably treaties require these patent applications to be shared between member countries after 18 months.
I think this is what some people are angry about. I don't know the rationale behind the sharing of applications, so maybe somebody else can step up and elaborate for us? I guess by publishing these patent applications, anyone in another country where the patent holder isn't planning on applying for a patent could then in turn patent it himself. Anybody in a country where the US patent wouldn't be legal could use the information in the patent for his own good. I may be totally off-base here, but that's how I read it. Corrections are welcome.
Title V - Patent Litigation Reduction Act (I like it already)
Anybody can write the patent office with a request for re-examination, citing examples of prior art. Their letter will become an official part of the patent, and the patent office must make a determination (whether or not to re-examine) within 3 months. The requester gets copies of the progress.
Title VI - Patent and Trademark Office
This takes up about half of the actual bill. Since I'm not totally familiar with the current structure of the PTO, this could either be a lot of re-wording, or (more likely) a complete restructuring of the office itself. Note that this seems to only apply to the PTO office/organization. It doesn't have anything to do with the types of patents issued, but how they do their day-to-day business, how they evaluate their staff, and pick their work force.
But most importantly, the bill includes wording to bring the PTO out of the dark ages. They're given permission to make use of whatever equipment and technology they need (like broadband) and lets them hire their examiners more competitively.
As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between genetic code and computer software (in this context) is that one program is run by biological mechanisms and the other by electronic ones.
Lots of people have been clammoring for the complete abolishment of all software patents, which I don't fully agree with. I think that this system needs a lot of work, and the number of software patents issued needs to be limited (at least) to truly unique, novel algorithms, not silly UI "innovations." Someone mentioned wavelets as an example of what I would consider patentable.
Genetic code should share these limitations, with the additional protection against genetic code found in nature. Of course then what happens when somebody develops a cool checksum/redundancy technique to resist mutation, they receive a patent, and then later on someone else discovers that technique being used elsewhere in nature? Is the patent revoked? Limited? Have there already been discussions or precedents relating to this?
I'm almost exactly the opposite. If the ambient light in the room doesn't approach the "white" on my monitor, my eyes bother me and I get headaches more easily.
I also really prefer incandescent light to fluorescents. Before I moved to an office with a window, I made them take out the overhead fluorescents and get me a halogen lamp. Today I have an office with a window view (and lots of *natural* light, the best of all).
Low light is great for me, so long as I'm not sitting at a computer. When I am, I much prefer a well-lit environment.
We've taken some pictures, wrote up some text and released the software we're using:
http://fastolfe.net/features/telecam/
Firstly, legOS is a really cool project. They've totally re-written the firmware for the RCX and built a fully pre-emptive multitasking environment running programs you can write in C or C++ and compile with a gcc cross-compiler. Very cool stuff, though the networking support (IR) doesn't seem very usable just yet.
NQC uses the standard firmware I believe, and is a bit more solidified. You write programs in a pseudo-C language and compile/upload it using the NQC utility. It also has some good IR message passing abilities.
Information about both of these can be found at LUGNET in the robotics section.
I experimented with LegOS a while back but ended up using NQC and a bunch of server-side Perl to build myself a telerobotic camera mount for my webcam.
There are definitely tools available out there for some extremely flexible Mindstorms programming.
Not having massive regulatory bodies does not mean that companies can get away with selling dangerous products.
This is precisely what prescription drugs are, though. They've been deemed dangerous and are not permitted to be sold unless you have the written permission of a doctor. They've been classified this way because the FDA has determined that the average citizen is neither responsible nor resourceful enough to make a determination as to the safety of this drug with respects to their own unique situation.
With respects to my views on marijuana, I really don't have much of an opinion. If it were up to me, tobacco would be banned right along with it, but that's not going to happen, so I wouldn't have much of a problem decriminilzing marijuana use for consistency if nothing else.
A huge number of people die of heart disease every year, many of whom could probably have been saved
Better diets and exercise are fundamental changes in a person's lifestyle. Prohibiting the use of certain drugs or mandating alternatives doesn't quite seem in the same ball park to me as requiring all everyone to have an hour of exercise a day.
My point is that once you start passing "for your own good" laws how do you decide where to stop?
I believe we already have. Laws requiring prescriptions aren't exactly new things. This article is about legislation setting federal standards that are already in sync with existing state laws. We're not passing any more "for your own good" laws, we're just making it possible for the FDA to step in in inter-state drug sales and set guidelines as to quality and keep the pharmacies honest and legal.
If some idiot is going to randomly combine 17 prescriptions...
It doesn't take 17. All it takes is 1 or 2 slightly ill-researched prescriptions to cause significant harm. If people were really confident in their abilities to research their own drug purchases, why are these drugs being classified as prescription drugs in the first place? Why are they not "over the counter"? The FDA has concluded (quite logically and fairly, in my opinion) that most people cannot or will not be able to do their own research on drugs that meet this level of risk.
I'm not trying to say everyone is going to go out and start buying prescription drugs at will. I'm thinking instead of the lower-class or undereducated families that can not necessarily afford to see a doctor. If drugs were freely available without a prescription, these people are significantly less likely to even try to see a doctor, and will instead rely on word of mouth for their prescription drug choices. This can't be good. In order to survive like this, one would have to become an expert in prescription drugs, which few people are going to do.
If people are going to take a drug without either professional advice or the information to make their own decision, that is their own responsibility.
What I'm trying to say is that people WILL be taking drugs without adequate information on the risks. There is no possible way someone is going to be able to do all of the research necessary to be sure that a given drug will not affect them adversely, either in concert with another drug they're taking or an ailment, disease or other defect. In fact, people are going to be MORE likely to be influenced by marketing and word-of-mouth than by any degree of research they will be able to do, which (as I'm sure you'll agree) is not the safest way to do your prescription drug shopping.
The only way someone can be relatively sure that they a) need a prescription drug at all and b) know that the drug they need will be safe for them to use (or get an alternative), will be to either consult a doctor, or to utilize some yet-to-be invented computer system that can diagnose illnesses and predict risks imparted by taking a drug or a series of drugs. Sounds like a robotic doctor to me.
I guarantee you that if legislation were dropped requiring a doctor's prescription that there would be a tremendous buying frenzy of prescription drugs that people do not need. There will also be a *significant* increase in the number of ailments, overdoses and deaths that will be a direct result of people purchasing prescription drugs without adequate knowledge or research as to how these drugs are to be used.
It's not a simple matter of convenience here. It sounds like some of you don't want prescriptions simply because you want to get access to drugs that a doctor will not prescribe for you. Chances are, he has a VERY good reason for not prescribing those drugs for you.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I do see where you're coming from, and in an ideal world, yes, I would imagine everyone would have the means and opportunity to do their own research on drugs and have the maturity and faith in their own bodies to know when they do and do not need to use those drugs, but this is far from an ideal world. People's lives are regularly being destroyed as the result of addictive drugs, and removing the requirement for safeguards such as the current prescription drug system will only serve to hurt people.
X-rays and drug-hunting devices and dogs are pretty common, I'd wager.
The scenereo was specifically of a drug that was fraudulently marketed.
...as are crack, cocaine, and other narcotics. There'll always be people out to make a quick buck by not disclosing all of the truth, or outright lying. I was pointing out that, despite laws forbidding this, drug dealers are still out on the streets selling drugs to people that may or may not know the risks. Should we be placing the blame on the users, the dealers, the manufacturers? A combination of both? Or is there no blame at all?
People still have a responsibility to check if what they're about to ingest is safe.
What would you consider a 'responsible check'? How much research must one do before they cease to be irresponsible and become responsible?
Now realize that if we move to a free market, where anyone can pick up any drug they wanted, those that make and sell dangerous drugs are probably going to want to hide a few things here and there, or downplay some risks. That may make it a bit more difficult for someone doing a cursory check on the risks associated with a drug to come up with something that changes their mind. If the company is good at obfuscating the risks, the average person is neither going to understand or recognize the significance of what their research has turned up.
Now who's to blame? The user for not being in the top tenth percentile of educated people, or the manufacturer for listening more to their marketing people than their scientists?
Since both are readily available, I don't see your point.
Just because a law is 90% effective does not mean it's a useless law. Stamping out the law will allow a sort of equilibreum to be established, between the makers and sellers of harmful substances and the users of those substances, each with varying degrees of education about the risks of those substances.
The idea is to prevent people that don't know any better from using something known to be harmful and addicting.
It costs nothing to go to a public library.
Are you really suggesting that everyone go to the public library every time they feel a desire to go out and get some prescription drug for some random ailment they've just noticed?
How many people are going to do that? I'll probably round my estimates to the nearest whole number and say zero.
In a world where people were free to choose what drugs they take, pharmacists would probably want to keep a good amount of information on hand in order to serve their customers
They'll probably only do so if/when it helps them to earn money. I imagine "hole-in-the-wall" type online pharmacies would have plenty of business without wanting or needing to set up information centers for people to research the drugs they're wanting to buy. I'd say the majority of prescription drug purchases are for refills or drugs that the person is probably going to be taking for the rest of their life. Why go to a pricey pharmacy when you can find one that doesn't have to spend money on education, training and offering research material and can get you a much better deal?
So now that we've established that these places will exist, why would a mother on welfare supporting 5 kids want to even start her drug shopping at a classy place to begin with? Chances are, one of her friends has told her she needs to give her kid drug X and Y to clear up two symptoms, so she does goes to Cheap-Ass Pharmacy and orders those drugs. As Cheap-Ass Pharmacy has no reference material (not that she'd take the time to read it anyways), she does not know that drugs X and Y are mutually exclusive and will cause certain death if mixed. Oh damn. Is it her own fault then? Does her kid deserve what he got? What if it's something more benign.. let's say the kid has some kidney disorder that would make drug X potentially lethal, but the mother of course doesn't know this. A doctor would be able to check for this disorder before prescribing drug X. Is it the mother's fault for not knowing this?
government does not need to protect people from themselves. I realize that some people won't be able to handle that.
You're right, because it's been shown time and time again that people are NOT smart enough to be able to survive in this world without some laws designed to protect them from their own stupidity. Look in your home, on the backs of appliances, on the tags on your furniture, on the very plastic bags that these things were shipped in. How many different and distinct warning labels do you see? Every one of those warning labels was brought about because somebody was too stupid to care for himself.
I agree in that I'd like to see the government regulating less than it currently is, but I firmly believe that existing laws regarding the need for prescriptions before drugs can be given are quite necessary and inconsequential. I've probably been prescribed drugs 2 or 3 times in my life, and every time it's been the result of me going to see a doctor. If people are so adament that they be allowed to get potentially dangerous drugs without needing a prescription, what exactly do they need these drugs for? Common sense says to get a doctor to investigate your latest ailment, not to try and diagnose it on your own, yet that seems to be what people are shooting for here, and I don't quite understand why. Under what circumstances would you ever need a prescription drug (versus an OTC drug) without going to see a doctor?
It's easy to generalize a story, thus making pretty much any topic that fits in that generalization "on-topic."
The story is about legislation giving the US federal government jurisdiction over the licensing and monitoring of Internet pharmacies. It is not about whether all drugs should be made free and legal. I'm not here to debate this with you, but I think it's safe to say the vast, vast majority of Americans disagrees with this standpoint, so it's highly unlikely you will live to see your views realized. Of course, I'm not saying you shouldn't continue with your protests. By all means, continue. I'll just be dropping out of the discussion now.
Whoever committed fraud by claiming that it was a safe drug, and by marketing something so dangerous without adequate warnings, would be mostly to blame
Wow, you're right. Those damn drug dealers. Let's put them in jail!
But the people who took it without bothering to look up any information on the drug are also to blame for their own recklessness.
Right-o. Those kids hooked on crack deserved what they got. Let 'em sit in misery for the rest of their life. But gods, no, let's not blame the drug or the maker.
I hope you're not saying that any real drug, illegal or legal, is nearly that addictive.
It's all about scale. There are *plenty* of OTC and prescription drugs that are addictive in nature, but *how* addictive is one factor in many in determining how a drug should be classified. Drugs with a high-degree of addictibility tend to be made illegal, sometimes regardless of their medicinal value.
If people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, it's because of two reasons.
Perhaps. Without these laws, however, how many more people would be addicted to narcotics? Cigarettes? How many people would -- due entirely to their own mistake -- die or become severely ill due to an improperly researched drug purchase?
Is it worth it for people to be permitted to purchase recreational drugs (which is what they would be -- after all, this whole thing is about getting drugs a doctor won't prescribe for you, right?) if it means a substantial increase in death and illness for people that either don't have the time nor the money to do research?
If a drug company lies about their products, they are guilty of fraud and will eventually be facing a huge class-action suit.
Who said anything about lying? All they have to do is down-play certain side effects, like, say, a 10% incidence of heart failure. You think people always read the fine print? What if there were no requirement for the fine print at all?
Since you believe government should be protecting us from ourselves, shall I assume you support bans on tobacco, alcohol, fried foods, and skiing?
I think that our current regulations on tobacco and alcohol are sufficient. The places where these regulations are weak can be made up by strong parenting.
The remainder of your examples are not remotely in the same class and unworthy of a response.
If people are incompetent to run their own lives, how can they be competent to elect leaders to run their lives for them?
There's a bit of difference between electing leaders and getting a doctor's advice regarding prescription medication.
Continuing with your analogy, though, how many people do you know honestly do any research into the candidates up for office? How many simply vote with the party?
If we had no prescription requirements, we would have as many prescription drug commercials as we have beer commercials. People would be watching the commercials, saying to themselves, "Hey, I have that problem," and flocking to their nearest drug store to pump themselves full of medication. Do people really read the warning labels on a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of beer? Do you think they're going to read the warnings on the box of medication? How many of these people are going to die because they didn't know drug X had a strong reaction with drug Y?
How can you possibly guarantee that people are going to be *able* to have enough information to make an informed decision about what drugs are safe to take and which are not? It's not like alcohol and tobacco here, where we have two distinct items that are quite heavily regulated and impressions firmly stamped in every American's brain about the effects. The variety of prescription drugs and the endless ways that these drugs interact and behave make it impossible to regulate them like we do alcohol and tobacco.
Should it be the user's fault that he's killed because he only did 2 minute's worth of research on a drug instead of 3, where he'd have discovered that the drug causes instant death in people that only have one kidney?
Few people are stupid about all things. Even fewer are smart about all things. Most everyone is smart about certain things, and not-so-smart about everything else. Doctors are smart about the human body and the drugs we put into it, thus it's only logical to trust them with these decisions. We're not talking about wristwatch preferences here. A very trivial mistake with a prescription drug can easily spell death.
And remember that there *is* such a thing as an over-the-counter drug. These are drugs that are either of low potency or deemed to have few if any ill-effects. If a drug is classified as a prescription drug, it's been classified that way for a reason. If you think the FDA is full of idiots, perhaps it's time you wrote some letters and got them all fired. I mean it's not like any of them have degrees or doctorates in any of this stuff. Maybe they'll be kind enough to hire you in their place. I'm sure we'll all be better off.
I was kind of
thinking off alone in the middle of a feild
where noone is around.
And as far as I know, this is perfectly legal. I think the original poster was thinking from my frame of reference, in a quiet neighborhood.
Should we require prescriptions
for those too? perhaps ban the sale of them?
How about require the makers of these items to disclose all known health risks and to put serious restrictions on their methods of advertising. And while we're at it, limit the purchases of these things to people that are 18 or 21 years old, so we can be sure they're old enough to make an informed decision on their own.
I suppose we could do exactly the same thing for all prescription drugs, but the resources required to not only put this into effect, but to monitor and ensure full disclosure and compliance on the parts of the makers of prescription drugs would be prohibitive. As prescription drugs tend to be individually things the average person knows little about (unlike alcohol and tobacco, which are quite common), it makes more sense to entrust a certain class of people with the tasks of learning the details about when certain drugs should be used, how they're used, how they're not to be used, and acceptable, less-risky alternatives, and require that class of people to give their consent before these items are given to the general public.
I see nothing wrong with
a brothel. As long as they keep quiet, why not?
OK, aside from the fact that we'd have to get rid of most commercial zoning laws as well as laws banning prostitution (each independently having merits outside of this situation), your argument is that what one does in the privacy of his own home is acceptable. So when does a building cease to become a home and start to become a place of business? Or does it matter? In my opinion, by opening up his doors to customers looking for sex, that place ceases to become simply a private home. While I don't entirely disagree with your point of view here, I would rather not see my neighbor's house turn into a brothel simply because it would attract all sorts of unsavory people and attention to my neighborhood and generally cause me headaches. I'd say let's make this more of a community law/ordinance, but I think for the most part, it already is.
I am firmly against the idea
that the government should have any say in what
people can or can not do in the privacy of
their own home, or with other consenting
adults (ie using drugs, paying for sex).
This is moving out off of the topic at hand, but let me ask you this:
Let's say I invent a drug X that, given a single dose, mimics the effects of alcohol while having an extremely addicting effect on the taker. So addicting, in fact, that one dose is sufficient to addict an adult in such a way that 99% of the people that take it begin taking it regularly. This drug is "marketed" as a quick, safe high by the dealers and quickly spreads.
So you think a substance like this should be allowed to be created and sold? All of the people that end up taking this drug, whether or not they know about its addictive effects, deserve to be hooked on it? And when prices go up tenfold, they deserve to have their bank accounts drained paying for a steady supply? Or do you think they should just "suck it up," "bite the bullet" and check into rehab? Overcoming a drug addiction of a severe magnitude is not a pretty or painless thing. Did they have it coming?
Now, I'm not saying that all illegal drugs have these types of effects, but there are plenty that do. It all boils down to the fact that people today have a need to be protected from their own ignorance and stupidity. To suggest that everyone is capable of making educated, informed decisions about everything that will affect their life is naive.
Now I'm a firm believer in Darwinian natural selection. I do not feel we need to spend so much money and time keeping the stupid people in our country alive and healthy. I do not, however, wish to see pharmaceutical companies marketing their prescription drugs like it were laundry detergent, and things are starting to move in this direction. I am pleased that we have doctors that are trained to know what drugs are required for specific situations and when those drugs can not and should not be used. If we eliminate this requirement, for doctors to give prescriptions for certain drugs, I shudder to think how many people will, incorrectly and sometimes fatally, turn to prescription drugs when they don't need them.
To be honest, it sounds like your beef is more with illegal drugs and how you feel drugs should be legalized entirely than with legislation of online prescription drug pharmacies, and this is out of the scope of this thread.
So should I be denied direct access to medication just because my next door neighbours are idiots? I think not.
Who said anything about denying you access to medication? If you can't seem to find a doctor willing to prescribe some medication for you, I think it's a safe bet to say that a) you don't need that medication; or b) it would be dangerous or lethal for you to use it.
You seem to have this horrible animosity towards doctors. I promise you doctors are in the business to keep you alive and healthy. If you disagree with that, that's your problem. If medical training and licensing requirements are really so terrible where you live, perhaps you should move.
All we need is the ability to stay fully informed about those risks
Bingo.
So let's say we eliminate most all laws that are set up to protect ourselves from our own ignorance and stupidity.
How would you keep people fully informed about decisions they're about to make? How would you counter misleading advertising? It's obvious to a doctor that drug X, despite being marketed on TV commercials as *the* cure for some ailment, is significantly more dangerous and less effective than drug Y. Does that not matter? How can you get information that the consumer will trust into those consumers' hands?
What happens when that information is faulty? If a doctor is negligent, we can blame him, but if there's a typo or incorrect cross-reference in some online information source that causes a naive reader to make a poor decision ending in his death, who's liable? Anyone?
What you seem to be advocating is a fundamental change in one of the major charges of government: to protect its citizens. That protection has tended to include protection from one's self.
I do not feel that a person of average (or even above-average) intelligence is capable of making fully informed, trustworthy decisions about *all* aspects of their life. It seems that you put more faith in the average person than I do.
Sure...if noone is anywhere nearby that could
possibly be hit. Otherwise you are endangering
others.
So by this I assume that you do not support statutes for things like "disturbing the peace"? If my neighbor started shooting all sorts of firearms in the air while my baby girl was trying to sleep, you can bet I'd be a bit angry, and there are laws on the books that makes this type of behavior illegal (at least in most cities).
One could argue that allowing a pharmacy to operate negligently or illegally is, in fact, "endangering others."
Why is it any of your buisness if they run a
brothel?
So I guess then that you are also opposed to anti-prostitution legislation, and various zoning laws about where businesses and industries can be built? I personally love the fact that my neighbor can't tear down his house and replace it with a coal-burning factory that produces foul-smelling tires. Not to mention the fact that if my neighbor started up a brothel, the value of my home would probably drop quite a lot, but then that's why we have homeowners associations, yes? Or are you against them also?
Why not? Why is it you are so interested in what
your neibor does in the privacy of his own home?
Do you keep track of what he does...make sure he
isn't having sex outside of marriage too?
I can't really tell if you're trying to have a legitimate argument here or if you're just trying to be annoying. It sounds like you're against all sorts of laws that are already in the books (in this case, laws against the production of illegal drugs)...
If you really have such a beef about these laws, perhaps you should try writing to your local legislature. I sincerely doubt these things will ever be legalized, so maybe it would be in your best interests to move to a lesser-developed country that doesn't have these laws. It sounds like you'd be happier there.
that education in most cases is favorable to education
Naturally, I meant "favorable to regulation."