The reality is that most of the "savings" would come from not having to pay to do large scale testing with expensive labs, scientists, and medical personnel.
Want to explain how you spend $800 million on clinical tests?
It doesn't cost anything like that to go through the approval process in France, Germany, Japan, etc.
Weren't we just talking about how to make the system more efficient and accurate?
Courts are for exceptional circumstances. People who actually seek to harm others, or who do so through depraved indifference are exceptional; that's why they're big news stories when they happen.
What happens now is the FDA has usurped the power to decide what medications I can use. There's no constitutional authority for that.
You'll note that Arthur Andersen was basically destroyed for their Enron fuck-up. They didn't get more money and get to continue their incompetence.
The UL's stock in trade is their reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. If someone wants to make substandard electrical outlets and bribe the UL to approve them, the UL would be risking their very existence, on top of the liability if anyone is hurt using the defective product.
I'd rather have some organization like a council of certified pharmacists testing and approving drugs, than leave it up to the FDA. Those idiots actually approve of injecting botulism toxin into your face to treat wrinkles, while they keep anti-clotting drugs that can save the lives of heart attack victims off the market.
What is this, the electronic version of submitting to a drug test?
Funny you should mention that.
I find it appalling that people routinely submit to such an invasion of privacy. I've even done it once myself, because I'd already flown out to NYC and was at the client site before the fuckers sprung it on me. I should have gone ahead and taken the financial hit and sued them for my time and expenses to be there.
I wouldn't make that claim. The key difference between the private and the public sectors is that incompetence in the private sector results in correction: incompetent organizations go out of business.
I think it's worthwhile that we have some kind of system in place that stops such dangerous drugs and remedies from reaching the public at all, BEFORE anyone is harmed/defrauded.
Ever heard of the Underwriters' Laboratories?
Personally, I'd prefer to have the safety and efficacy of products I buy vetted by an organization that has something to lose if they're wrong, than by a bureaucracy which will probably see its budget increased if they fuck up.
Absolutely no restriction would result in dangerous drugs being released to he public, or more likely, drugs that simply do nothing at all.
This is the proper realm for tort law, and criminal penalties for fraud or reckless endangerment. If someone sells an ineffective product, then sue them based on your reliance upon any false claims they make in their advertising. If someone sells you cyanide as a cancer remedy, then they belong in jail for murder.
What I object to is the premise that our bodies are the property of the state, and that the state is entitled to override our own decisions as to what drugs we choose to use.
I'm trying to think of a downside to making all medications and supplements require FDA approval.
Where to begin?
If you can't imagine that freedom is a viable option, then have you considered the thousands of people who die every year waiting for the bureaucrats to allow them to use the medicine they need?
how are we not going to have a bunch of severed kites everywhere?
This is just a wild guess, but I'm thinking it could be done the same way aircraft avoid each other. Put nav lights and radar transponders on the kites.
Not too long ago at all, women and blacks had no "inherent" right to vote.
Nobody has a right to vote. Voting is a term of the contract in which we delegate powers to elected leaders; voting is how we choose them. By voting, you agree to be governed by the winner.
Slashdot Mirror
The reality is that most of the "savings" would come from not having to pay to do large scale testing with expensive labs, scientists, and medical personnel.
Want to explain how you spend $800 million on clinical tests?
It doesn't cost anything like that to go through the approval process in France, Germany, Japan, etc.
-jcr
Amendment 8:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Courts have held that damages awarded in civil suits are not "fines". Was this case a criminal or civil process?
-jcr
Putting out real medicine is expensive,
It's a lot more expensive than it needs to be, and you can thank the costs of FDA red tape for that.
-jcr
Weren't we just talking about how to make the system more efficient and accurate?
Courts are for exceptional circumstances. People who actually seek to harm others, or who do so through depraved indifference are exceptional; that's why they're big news stories when they happen.
What happens now is the FDA has usurped the power to decide what medications I can use. There's no constitutional authority for that.
-jcr
You'll note that Arthur Andersen was basically destroyed for their Enron fuck-up. They didn't get more money and get to continue their incompetence.
The UL's stock in trade is their reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. If someone wants to make substandard electrical outlets and bribe the UL to approve them, the UL would be risking their very existence, on top of the liability if anyone is hurt using the defective product.
I'd rather have some organization like a council of certified pharmacists testing and approving drugs, than leave it up to the FDA. Those idiots actually approve of injecting botulism toxin into your face to treat wrinkles, while they keep anti-clotting drugs that can save the lives of heart attack victims off the market.
-jcr
What is this, the electronic version of submitting to a drug test?
Funny you should mention that.
I find it appalling that people routinely submit to such an invasion of privacy. I've even done it once myself, because I'd already flown out to NYC and was at the client site before the fuckers sprung it on me. I should have gone ahead and taken the financial hit and sued them for my time and expenses to be there.
-jcr
Take Somalia, for instance, no big bad government there!
Oh for crying out loud, not that stupid canard again. What exists in Somalia is a myriad of competing governments.
-jcr
In every historical case, lack of collective action has lead to oppression of the working class by the owning class.
Not in every case. Of course, the most egregious cases of an owning class exploiting a working class today are in North Korea and Cuba.
-jcr
The private sector does EVERYTHING better,
I wouldn't make that claim. The key difference between the private and the public sectors is that incompetence in the private sector results in correction: incompetent organizations go out of business.
-jcr
Is there any level at which collective action (otherwise known as 'government') is a good thing?
Yes. The legitimate function of government is to secure our rights. Bastiat did a very fine job of explaining this in The Law.
The private sector exists to give you as little value for your dollar as you can be convinced to accept.
If you actually believe that, then you should never be in charge of a business.
The government is an agent working on your behalf.
It seems that you're confusing what a government is supposed to be, with what it actually is.
-jcr
If it deters people from applying for city jobs, it could prove to be a good thing.
-jcr
Prove it's ineffective.
That's what lawyers, courts, and juries are for.
-jcr
I think it's worthwhile that we have some kind of system in place that stops such dangerous drugs and remedies from reaching the public at all, BEFORE anyone is harmed/defrauded.
Ever heard of the Underwriters' Laboratories?
Personally, I'd prefer to have the safety and efficacy of products I buy vetted by an organization that has something to lose if they're wrong, than by a bureaucracy which will probably see its budget increased if they fuck up.
-jcr
Absolutely no restriction would result in dangerous drugs being released to he public, or more likely, drugs that simply do nothing at all.
This is the proper realm for tort law, and criminal penalties for fraud or reckless endangerment. If someone sells an ineffective product, then sue them based on your reliance upon any false claims they make in their advertising. If someone sells you cyanide as a cancer remedy, then they belong in jail for murder.
What I object to is the premise that our bodies are the property of the state, and that the state is entitled to override our own decisions as to what drugs we choose to use.
-jcr
Fair enough. I will concede that homeopathic products can treat thirst. Also, if applied topically, they can provide temporary relief from dry skin.
-jcr
when interest rates reach Jimmy Carter levels
What makes you think that the Fed is suddenly going to give up their inflation policy?
-jcr
I love the smell of panicked right wing nut job in the morning, it smells like victory.
If he were a right-winger, wouldn't he be praising Obama for continuing Bush's bad policies?
-jcr
It's funny that they can market zicam as being "homeopathic". It's a total mass produced, corporate, industrially made drug
Agreed. It's an entirely different form of quackery.
-jcr
I'm trying to think of a downside to making all medications and supplements require FDA approval.
Where to begin?
If you can't imagine that freedom is a viable option, then have you considered the thousands of people who die every year waiting for the bureaucrats to allow them to use the medicine they need?
-jcr
But this product has nothing to do with homeopathy. Homeopaths sell water. They don't do active ingredients.
-jcr
But they'd still have to drop at least three lines to the ground -- and likely even more -- so the kite doesn't sway unpredictably.
No, you just need control surfaces on the kite to steer it where you want it.
-jcr
how are we not going to have a bunch of severed kites everywhere?
This is just a wild guess, but I'm thinking it could be done the same way aircraft avoid each other. Put nav lights and radar transponders on the kites.
-jcr
Not too long ago at all, women and blacks had no "inherent" right to vote.
Nobody has a right to vote. Voting is a term of the contract in which we delegate powers to elected leaders; voting is how we choose them. By voting, you agree to be governed by the winner.
-jcr
we arbitrarily decide on the planets' internals
No, we constantly refine our model of the earth's internal structure by seismic studies, as well as studying surface, volcanic, and deep-ocean rocks.
-jcr
In fact, Earth right now is leaking atmosphere faster than Mars is, pound for pound.
Considering how thin Mars' atmosphere is, that's not at all surprising.
-jcr