"I could easily claim that while legal immigrants tend to "integrate" to a certain extent, they largely treat their ethnic heritage with pride and generally commingle with other foreign nationals, immigrants, and citizens of common ancestry."
I didn't say legal immigrants lose their identity and conform. I said:
"legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture"
A legal immigrant is an American. They raise their children as Americans. They want to be part of America if they didn't they wouldn't have gone through the hassle of respecting our rules about coming here. That doesn't mean they have to forget where they came from.
"if this were not the case, Little Tokyo, the many Chinatowns, Little Saigon, etc. would not exist"
I already pointed out nothing I said conflicted with these. But these aren't pockets of isolation. If you go to Chinatown people still know how to speak English. Those who can speak English won't refuse to speak it. It isn't about throwing away ones culture it is about having respect for the culture you are becoming a part of and the chinese (in general, though there are plenty of illegal chinese immigrants) came legally so their first act was not to slap our nation in the face. Even so, Chinatowns are a symptom of the effects of mass immigration and are part of why we have immigration quotas today.
"Conversely, I can dispute your claim that illegals isolate themselves from the rest of American society because (a) you didn't support that claim"
I wouldn't think it needs supported for an American? Large swaths of the southwest and Los Angeles are filled with people who came illegally or were raised by illegal aliens. People who consider themselves Mexicans and consider the land they occupy to rightfully belong to Mexico. They hate the government of Mexico but blame the US for keeping that government in power. They see themselves as fleeing poverty and not Mexico and they come here because it is where the wealth is but believe the wealth is here largely because the US intentionally keeps Mexico impoverished. For an example see some of the other responses to my post.
Another example is Miami aka Little Cuba. The city is filled people who are part of a mass illegal migration to the United States. That this aligned with our political stance at the time and was sanctioned AFTERWARD doesn't change the intent. Cubans do not hate America or feel it all belongs to them, they simply feel that South Florida belongs to them. Even second generation Cubans who speak perfect fluent English will refuse to speak it in many cases. Demanding someone assist them in Spanish, then resorting to hand gestures if that fails, and when that gets frustrating finally breaking down to use their perfect English. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this first hand in Miami.
"The arguments against hardline tactics such as hunting them (the GP presumably meant with vigilante groups in camouflage and hunting rifles) generally do not say anything about whether illegals broke the law because it's irrelevant to the objection."
Your assertion that the poor have no morals or ethical standards is insulting to someone who has lived most of his life poor.
"The insistence on the technical illegality of their entry and presence in our country"
The insistence on trivializing a very serious and immoral act and spewing of pious rants about it are the shallow musings of simpletons.
"What would inspire you to walk across the Sonoran Desert for 48 hours guided by heavily armed murderous mobsters?"
Don't know I haven't needed to do it. But the heavily armed murderous mobsters apparently take the stroll on a regular basis so it can't be that bad.
"knowing that they will get a very poorly paid job at which they will have to work practically like slaves"
I have an illegal immigrant working for me. She comes every couple weeks and cleans the house. She makes about $60/hr and has a long list of things she doesn't do which includes straightening up. The burden that poor woman suffers making more money than I do and doing less work.
"You could reduce, though not eliminate, the problem of new illegal immigration overnight without changing general immigration policy or overall legal immigration limits, simply by using overall limits without limited per-country allocation."
Almost. Those policies are there for a valid reason and it is refusing to admit it that keeps real immigration reform from happening. It is perfectly valid to not want mass influxes of non-native citizens moving into communities and seizing political power and forcing the existing legal residents to move or be subject to the views of an alien culture.
If you want to open up legal immigration then open it up but offering lifetime visas that must be renewed with language proficiency tests, criminal background reviews, and non-delinquent taxes every 10 years or so. These initial immigrants would never be given political power to vote in any level of city, county, state, or federal government but otherwise would enjoy the same status and rights as citizens. Definitively put a stop to Spanish classes and efforts to add additional national languages in the same bill. Immigrants are supposed to learn English and US History BEFORE being allowed into the US. You don't need to expend efforts to provide services in other languages to people who speak English.
Basically, this delays the political impact of mass immigration by a single generation but would prevent the motive for illegal immigration.
"our values and laws, such as, y'know, not murdering people"
It's probably best to speak for yourself on what values you think 'we' have. Your values may call execution a crime but that isn't a blanket national stance there are entire states that execute criminals on a regular basis.
What part of 'parts of their former culture' do you not get? The large influx of Chinese immigrants is an exception because there was no legal vs illegal immigration when the bulk of it happened. Even so, the vast majority of Asian immigrants have integrated into (and helped shape) our culture. That kind of pocket and slow integration is the reason we have immigration laws today.
"Oh, and let's not forget Little Havana down in Florida"
Yes I lived there. I'd hardly call the mass influx of Cubans who came en mass illegally and seized a portion of US territory legal immigrants.
"For that matter, those traitorous Southerners are real ungrateful twerps"
Huh? Oh hey I know. Lets build a blatant strawman like that anything I said depended on there being no immigration or local variances in culture and then beat the shit out of it!
"hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity?"
HELL YES. Bring this on, immediately.
Seriously, why do people insist on trying to equate illegals with immigrants? The first act of an illegal is disrespect our national and its law, their very method of entry into the nation demonstrates they are unfit to enter our society. The first act of an immigrant is to show respect for our nation and culture and to undergo significant (but not unreasonable) efforts to become a part of it.
There is a reason why legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture while illegal immigrants form pockets of what they consider to still be their culture.
With you 100%. In fact, the price benefits of outsourcing overseas are so extreme that until we get a solid economy back I think it would be worthwhile to make all profits earned on goods built entirely in the US (and the income earned by workers producing them) tax free.
This makes a hell of a lot more sense than the tax breaks we give foreign oil powers and bailing out anti-consumer massive banks. Especially since it will strengthen the economy and pay for itself indirectly by increasing other tax revenues and state tax revenues.
Wealthy and want a tax break? Convert your revenue streams to the things which benefit the US economy and national security the most.
"you're no doubt using them for switching or amplification, which is what they're good for."
Right, in other words using them as transistors.
"Unless you want to store a single bit (or a handful of bits), discrete memristors are useless anyway."
You say that as if nobody would ever want to do such a thing. There are times when lots and lots of tiny localized memory with parallel access would be useful. In fact there are components for this purpose now.
"There aren't transistors. If you're buying discrete ttransistotrs,"
Good catch. I kept wanted to put 2048 and mentally correcting to 1024 and ended up with 1048. doh!
"If you want to amortize by something, then that something would be dollars"
It would be both bytes and dollars. I want all the hardware AND price improvement. I'm not willing to share it with software firms that will charge me the same price for bloated software developed using more rapid (read lazy) techniques.
I'm all for bloat that translates directly into actual benefits or the bloat is simply eye candy and video filling up whatever space it requires but the vast majority of the software bloat seen between win98se and is being caused by lazy and so called rapid development (even though this rapid development doesn't seem to actually translate into more rapid improvement of software, if anything improvement has slowed dramatically in that time).
Example, Photoshop 4 was 25mb without any of the extra garbage. Photoshop has new and useful features but it certainly isn't double what it was then and it hasn't really added multimedia content. Additionally, in proper development most of the new functionality should have enjoyed common code with the existing functionality already present in 4 so in terms of space and ram it should have been cheap. There certainly isn't a perl interpreter worth of extra functionality there.
Photoshop 4 to 5 basically added unlimited undos something that should have taken 1mb tops but cost more than double the disk. It all went downhill from there. Photoshop size isn't even measured in MB anymore.
Sorry but just because I got double the memory for half the price doesn't make it okay for you the developer to waste it. If you use 1mb you better add 1mb worth of functionality whether that mb cost me $100 or a penny.
I can buy big bags of transistors direct from hong kong on ebay for $5 for my hobby electronics use. Will that ever be the came with the memristor or will these never be made in component size and instead restricted to larger chips that are tens of dollars or more capacities only?
"I like my 2-gigabyte operating system much better than the 2-megabyte operating system I used in 1993"
But do you like it 1048x as well? If the difference in size were multimedia I might be inclined to let it go but it isn't. Also your numbers are off, the current version of most popular OS is about triple that.
False. That is the lie judges decided they are allowed to tell juries after the Jim Crowe south. It is the duty of a juror not only to decide the evidence but if the law itself is just. Our government is full of checks and balances, each branch against one another and the people in the form of the jury are the ultimate check against government.
The people, via juries, have the power to veto government on a case by case basis. This is the only direct power the people have, even voting is done indirectly through the electoral college.
What you seem to not understand is that by default congress CANNOT regulate anything. They have very specific areas they are allowed to regulate. All other areas are reserved to the states and the people.
Almost all of federal law is derived from a very liberal reading of the commerce clause of the constitution. For instance, the entire authority to create an FDA and regulate drugs (like asprin and marijuana) is taken from a twisted reading of the commerce clause. The commerce clause only grants congress permission to regulate interstate commerce (which is considered to include more than actual for profit activities since had a broader meaning when the clause was written).
Congress claims it has the right to regulate the production of marijuana because you COULD transport it interstate even if it is only legal intrastate.
From your source "This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution"
Congress can't just pass any old law they please. They have enumerated powers in the constitution and only a law consistent with those powers qualifies under the supremacy law. Falling afoul of federal law isn't enough, the act has to fall afoul of a federal law that is within congressional authority in the first place.
The constitution doesn't grant congress the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, that power is reserved to the states and the people, so any law they make in that regard isn't valid.
Dietary supplements like Herbs are covered under the DSHEA and that changes the rules. Essentially the roles are reversed and the burden falls on the FDA to disprove any claims being made rather than the manufacturer to prove any claims.
"Herbs' classification as dietary supplements comes from the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The act essentially ties the regulatory hands of the FDA. Producers of pharmaceutical and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs alike must first demonstrate that their products are effective and safe. After an average of 8.5 years' worth of tests, conducted first in labs and then in clinical trials at universities, drug producers file an appeal for FDA approval. The FDA then reviews the claims and either approves the drug, classifying it as an OTC or prescription drug. If the FDA doesn't approve the drug, it cannot be sold in the United States. Only about 0.1 percent of the compounds first tested in labs ever receive FDA approval [source: FDA].
There is no similar process for herbs. Under the DSHEA, the burden of proof to demonstrate an herbal supplement or its ingredients are unsafe is transferred from the producer to the FDA [source: Doogan]. Essentially, anyone who can package, market and distribute supplements with herbal ingredients can do so with no oversight by the FDA. As such, herbal supplement manufacturers can make wide claims concerning the benefits their products provide people who pop them. Only after a drug has been proven an "unreasonable" health risk or "imminent hazard to public safety" can the FDA compile a complaint, file it and hope for the best [source: Doogan]."
"Unlike drug products that must be proven safe and effective for their intended use before marketing, there are no provisions in the law for FDA to "approve" dietary supplements for safety or effectiveness before they reach the consumer. Under DSHEA, once the product is marketed, FDA has the responsibility for showing that a dietary supplement is "unsafe," before it can take action to restrict the product's use or removal from the marketplace."
New dietary supplements still need a sign off from the FDA even if they have no burden to prove their claims. However, the GRAS or "generally recognized as safe" clause exempts supplements with a long history of safe use from even these requirements.
And yes, according to these rules whole marijuana clearly falls into the GRAS food additive category and should be completely unregulated by the FDA. It is improperly classified as schedule I by the FDA in contradiction to their own rules. Even so I believe there are other federal prohibiting marijuana and I know there are treaties we've agreed to requiring such laws.
"The bottom line is this: If a substance is potent enough to have an effect on your health, it's a drug, and is subject to regulation by the FDA."
Incorrect. This has nothing to do with effectiveness or strength. The 'loophole' is the FDA's own guidelines which state that any traditional remedy with a long established documented history or safe use is exempt from regulation.
Technically yes. I'm still not impressed. People have been observing and acting based on the results of those observations since the dawn of man. That didn't miraculously start with the formalized scientific method and I don't think anyone is claiming it did.
Additionally, this is how most other herbal remedies were discovered so there still isn't anything astonishing about it.
Slashdot Mirror
"I could easily claim that while legal immigrants tend to "integrate" to a certain extent, they largely treat their ethnic heritage with pride and generally commingle with other foreign nationals, immigrants, and citizens of common ancestry."
I didn't say legal immigrants lose their identity and conform. I said:
"legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture"
A legal immigrant is an American. They raise their children as Americans. They want to be part of America if they didn't they wouldn't have gone through the hassle of respecting our rules about coming here. That doesn't mean they have to forget where they came from.
"if this were not the case, Little Tokyo, the many Chinatowns, Little Saigon, etc. would not exist"
I already pointed out nothing I said conflicted with these. But these aren't pockets of isolation. If you go to Chinatown people still know how to speak English. Those who can speak English won't refuse to speak it. It isn't about throwing away ones culture it is about having respect for the culture you are becoming a part of and the chinese (in general, though there are plenty of illegal chinese immigrants) came legally so their first act was not to slap our nation in the face. Even so, Chinatowns are a symptom of the effects of mass immigration and are part of why we have immigration quotas today.
"Conversely, I can dispute your claim that illegals isolate themselves from the rest of American society because (a) you didn't support that claim"
I wouldn't think it needs supported for an American? Large swaths of the southwest and Los Angeles are filled with people who came illegally or were raised by illegal aliens. People who consider themselves Mexicans and consider the land they occupy to rightfully belong to Mexico. They hate the government of Mexico but blame the US for keeping that government in power. They see themselves as fleeing poverty and not Mexico and they come here because it is where the wealth is but believe the wealth is here largely because the US intentionally keeps Mexico impoverished. For an example see some of the other responses to my post.
Another example is Miami aka Little Cuba. The city is filled people who are part of a mass illegal migration to the United States. That this aligned with our political stance at the time and was sanctioned AFTERWARD doesn't change the intent. Cubans do not hate America or feel it all belongs to them, they simply feel that South Florida belongs to them. Even second generation Cubans who speak perfect fluent English will refuse to speak it in many cases. Demanding someone assist them in Spanish, then resorting to hand gestures if that fails, and when that gets frustrating finally breaking down to use their perfect English. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this first hand in Miami.
"The arguments against hardline tactics such as hunting them (the GP presumably meant with vigilante groups in camouflage and hunting rifles) generally do not say anything about whether illegals broke the law because it's irrelevant to the objection."
No it is an intentional misdirection. The GP didn't say anything about hunting immigrants. As for the hardline tactics, the GP presumably was being http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facetious
Californian wine has consistently beaten European wine in double blind European taste testing for 20 years now.
"That dates back from 2003"
Ancient times indeed.
Don't know but I'm pretty sure the dark ages do.
Your assertion that the poor have no morals or ethical standards is insulting to someone who has lived most of his life poor.
"The insistence on the technical illegality of their entry and presence in our country"
The insistence on trivializing a very serious and immoral act and spewing of pious rants about it are the shallow musings of simpletons.
"What would inspire you to walk across the Sonoran Desert for 48 hours guided by heavily armed murderous mobsters?"
Don't know I haven't needed to do it. But the heavily armed murderous mobsters apparently take the stroll on a regular basis so it can't be that bad.
"knowing that they will get a very poorly paid job at which they will have to work practically like slaves"
I have an illegal immigrant working for me. She comes every couple weeks and cleans the house. She makes about $60/hr and has a long list of things she doesn't do which includes straightening up. The burden that poor woman suffers making more money than I do and doing less work.
Dead is dead, it doesn't particularly matter how one goes about it if you are killing someone for a crime by all means enjoy a little sport.
In any case you might enjoy this article. The evidence seems to indicate you are the only one who needs to read it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious
"You could reduce, though not eliminate, the problem of new illegal immigration overnight without changing general immigration policy or overall legal immigration limits, simply by using overall limits without limited per-country allocation."
Almost. Those policies are there for a valid reason and it is refusing to admit it that keeps real immigration reform from happening. It is perfectly valid to not want mass influxes of non-native citizens moving into communities and seizing political power and forcing the existing legal residents to move or be subject to the views of an alien culture.
If you want to open up legal immigration then open it up but offering lifetime visas that must be renewed with language proficiency tests, criminal background reviews, and non-delinquent taxes every 10 years or so. These initial immigrants would never be given political power to vote in any level of city, county, state, or federal government but otherwise would enjoy the same status and rights as citizens. Definitively put a stop to Spanish classes and efforts to add additional national languages in the same bill. Immigrants are supposed to learn English and US History BEFORE being allowed into the US. You don't need to expend efforts to provide services in other languages to people who speak English.
Basically, this delays the political impact of mass immigration by a single generation but would prevent the motive for illegal immigration.
"our values and laws, such as, y'know, not murdering people"
It's probably best to speak for yourself on what values you think 'we' have. Your values may call execution a crime but that isn't a blanket national stance there are entire states that execute criminals on a regular basis.
What part of 'parts of their former culture' do you not get? The large influx of Chinese immigrants is an exception because there was no legal vs illegal immigration when the bulk of it happened. Even so, the vast majority of Asian immigrants have integrated into (and helped shape) our culture. That kind of pocket and slow integration is the reason we have immigration laws today.
"Oh, and let's not forget Little Havana down in Florida"
Yes I lived there. I'd hardly call the mass influx of Cubans who came en mass illegally and seized a portion of US territory legal immigrants.
"For that matter, those traitorous Southerners are real ungrateful twerps"
Huh? Oh hey I know. Lets build a blatant strawman like that anything I said depended on there being no immigration or local variances in culture and then beat the shit out of it!
"hunting homeless and immigrants become a recreational activity?"
HELL YES. Bring this on, immediately.
Seriously, why do people insist on trying to equate illegals with immigrants? The first act of an illegal is disrespect our national and its law, their very method of entry into the nation demonstrates they are unfit to enter our society. The first act of an immigrant is to show respect for our nation and culture and to undergo significant (but not unreasonable) efforts to become a part of it.
There is a reason why legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture while illegal immigrants form pockets of what they consider to still be their culture.
With you 100%. In fact, the price benefits of outsourcing overseas are so extreme that until we get a solid economy back I think it would be worthwhile to make all profits earned on goods built entirely in the US (and the income earned by workers producing them) tax free.
This makes a hell of a lot more sense than the tax breaks we give foreign oil powers and bailing out anti-consumer massive banks. Especially since it will strengthen the economy and pay for itself indirectly by increasing other tax revenues and state tax revenues.
Wealthy and want a tax break? Convert your revenue streams to the things which benefit the US economy and national security the most.
"you're no doubt using them for switching or amplification, which is what they're good for."
Right, in other words using them as transistors.
"Unless you want to store a single bit (or a handful of bits), discrete memristors are useless anyway."
You say that as if nobody would ever want to do such a thing. There are times when lots and lots of tiny localized memory with parallel access would be useful. In fact there are components for this purpose now.
"There aren't transistors. If you're buying discrete ttransistotrs,"
huh? So there are no transistors.
"(Also, it's 1024, not 1048.)"
Good catch. I kept wanted to put 2048 and mentally correcting to 1024 and ended up with 1048. doh!
"If you want to amortize by something, then that something would be dollars"
It would be both bytes and dollars. I want all the hardware AND price improvement. I'm not willing to share it with software firms that will charge me the same price for bloated software developed using more rapid (read lazy) techniques.
I'm all for bloat that translates directly into actual benefits or the bloat is simply eye candy and video filling up whatever space it requires but the vast majority of the software bloat seen between win98se and is being caused by lazy and so called rapid development (even though this rapid development doesn't seem to actually translate into more rapid improvement of software, if anything improvement has slowed dramatically in that time).
Example, Photoshop 4 was 25mb without any of the extra garbage. Photoshop has new and useful features but it certainly isn't double what it was then and it hasn't really added multimedia content. Additionally, in proper development most of the new functionality should have enjoyed common code with the existing functionality already present in 4 so in terms of space and ram it should have been cheap. There certainly isn't a perl interpreter worth of extra functionality there.
Photoshop 4 to 5 basically added unlimited undos something that should have taken 1mb tops but cost more than double the disk. It all went downhill from there. Photoshop size isn't even measured in MB anymore.
Sorry but just because I got double the memory for half the price doesn't make it okay for you the developer to waste it. If you use 1mb you better add 1mb worth of functionality whether that mb cost me $100 or a penny.
Thank you for reminding us all again why the gp he responded to was right when he said...
"Yes yes yes, and about 12 picoseconds behind that the software morons will increase bloat exponentially."
"Will that ever be the came"
s/came/case/;
I can buy big bags of transistors direct from hong kong on ebay for $5 for my hobby electronics use. Will that ever be the came with the memristor or will these never be made in component size and instead restricted to larger chips that are tens of dollars or more capacities only?
"I like my 2-gigabyte operating system much better than the 2-megabyte operating system I used in 1993"
But do you like it 1048x as well? If the difference in size were multimedia I might be inclined to let it go but it isn't. Also your numbers are off, the current version of most popular OS is about triple that.
Are you sure? The reports I've read don't say whose rig it is.
you can if you don't tell the judge
False. That is the lie judges decided they are allowed to tell juries after the Jim Crowe south. It is the duty of a juror not only to decide the evidence but if the law itself is just. Our government is full of checks and balances, each branch against one another and the people in the form of the jury are the ultimate check against government.
The people, via juries, have the power to veto government on a case by case basis. This is the only direct power the people have, even voting is done indirectly through the electoral college.
What you seem to not understand is that by default congress CANNOT regulate anything. They have very specific areas they are allowed to regulate. All other areas are reserved to the states and the people.
Almost all of federal law is derived from a very liberal reading of the commerce clause of the constitution. For instance, the entire authority to create an FDA and regulate drugs (like asprin and marijuana) is taken from a twisted reading of the commerce clause. The commerce clause only grants congress permission to regulate interstate commerce (which is considered to include more than actual for profit activities since had a broader meaning when the clause was written).
Congress claims it has the right to regulate the production of marijuana because you COULD transport it interstate even if it is only legal intrastate.
From your source "This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution"
Congress can't just pass any old law they please. They have enumerated powers in the constitution and only a law consistent with those powers qualifies under the supremacy law. Falling afoul of federal law isn't enough, the act has to fall afoul of a federal law that is within congressional authority in the first place.
The constitution doesn't grant congress the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, that power is reserved to the states and the people, so any law they make in that regard isn't valid.
Dietary supplements like Herbs are covered under the DSHEA and that changes the rules. Essentially the roles are reversed and the burden falls on the FDA to disprove any claims being made rather than the manufacturer to prove any claims.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/vitamin-supplements/fda-regulate-herbal-supplements2.htm
"Herbs' classification as dietary supplements comes from the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The act essentially ties the regulatory hands of the FDA. Producers of pharmaceutical and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs alike must first demonstrate that their products are effective and safe. After an average of 8.5 years' worth of tests, conducted first in labs and then in clinical trials at universities, drug producers file an appeal for FDA approval. The FDA then reviews the claims and either approves the drug, classifying it as an OTC or prescription drug. If the FDA doesn't approve the drug, it cannot be sold in the United States. Only about 0.1 percent of the compounds first tested in labs ever receive FDA approval [source: FDA].
There is no similar process for herbs. Under the DSHEA, the burden of proof to demonstrate an herbal supplement or its ingredients are unsafe is transferred from the producer to the FDA [source: Doogan]. Essentially, anyone who can package, market and distribute supplements with herbal ingredients can do so with no oversight by the FDA. As such, herbal supplement manufacturers can make wide claims concerning the benefits their products provide people who pop them. Only after a drug has been proven an "unreasonable" health risk or "imminent hazard to public safety" can the FDA compile a complaint, file it and hope for the best [source: Doogan]."
http://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/consumerinformation/ucm110417.htm
"Unlike drug products that must be proven safe and effective for their intended use before marketing, there are no provisions in the law for FDA to "approve" dietary supplements for safety or effectiveness before they reach the consumer. Under DSHEA, once the product is marketed, FDA has the responsibility for showing that a dietary supplement is "unsafe," before it can take action to restrict the product's use or removal from the marketplace."
New dietary supplements still need a sign off from the FDA even if they have no burden to prove their claims. However, the GRAS or "generally recognized as safe" clause exempts supplements with a long history of safe use from even these requirements.
And yes, according to these rules whole marijuana clearly falls into the GRAS food additive category and should be completely unregulated by the FDA. It is improperly classified as schedule I by the FDA in contradiction to their own rules. Even so I believe there are other federal prohibiting marijuana and I know there are treaties we've agreed to requiring such laws.
"The bottom line is this: If a substance is potent enough to have an effect on your health, it's a drug, and is subject to regulation by the FDA."
Incorrect. This has nothing to do with effectiveness or strength. The 'loophole' is the FDA's own guidelines which state that any traditional remedy with a long established documented history or safe use is exempt from regulation.
Technically yes. I'm still not impressed. People have been observing and acting based on the results of those observations since the dawn of man. That didn't miraculously start with the formalized scientific method and I don't think anyone is claiming it did.
Additionally, this is how most other herbal remedies were discovered so there still isn't anything astonishing about it.